SINGAPORE: A woman in charge of payroll at a human resource company transferred a total of more than S$119,000 (US$89,300) meant for other employees to her own bank accounts or her friend’s.
Amanda Yao, a 37-year-old Singaporean, later turned out to be a repeat offender who had legally changed her name.
She was sentenced to two-and-a-half years’ jail on Friday (Mar 8) for one count of criminal breach of trust as a servant.
A second charge of getting her friend to accept an incoming S$21,000 “bonus” on her behalf before transferring it to her was taken into consideration.
The court heard that Yao was employed as payroll master at human resource company Elitez.
In her role, she had full dominion over the payroll monies of the company and could make outgoing bank transfers without having to seek approval.
Yao changed the beneficiary bank accounts of employees in Elitez’s payroll system to her own bank accounts or her friend Wendy Ong in 21 bank transfers between Aug 15, 2022 and March 7, 2023.
She transferred a total of S$119,572.53 in salary payments meant for other employees to herself.
The number of employees affected was not revealed in court.
Yao also asked Wendy to let her receive money in her bank account so the former could get a bonus.
Not knowing the real reason, Wendy allowed it. She received S$21,299 in her bank account and transferred the full amount to Yao.
A director of the company lodged a police report in April 2023, saying money had been embezzled.
Yao has since made restitution of S$20,000.
SENTENCING ARGUMENTS
Deputy Public Prosecutor Brian Tan said Yao has two related past convictions.
In April 2015, she was sentenced to 10 weeks’ jail for eight charges of cheating.
In June 2020, she was jailed for a week for theft.
Mr Tan sought 32 to 34 months’ jail for Yao, citing the high amount misappropriated spanning eight months.
He said there was a “serious abuse of trust” as Yao had the “unfettered right” to make new outgoing transfers as payroll master.
Not only did the offence undermine the delivery of financial services, there was also use of deception on her friend Wendy, implicating her, said Mr Tan.
Defence lawyer Ashvin Hariharan of IRB Law took issue with the prosecution’s calculation of the suggested jail term.
The prosecution said the jail term they sought had already factored in the 30 per cent discount for pleading guilty early, but Mr Ashvin said 30 per cent of 42 months – the prosecution’s starting point – was 29 months and not 32.
The prosecutor started to say that the discount was up to 30 per cent, but the judge interjected and said the 30 per cent should apply and that it is not discretionary.
District Judge Wong Li Tein said she considered the high amount misappropriated, the long period of offending and the abuse of position.
“Specific deterrence also must apply because obviously the accused has not learnt her lesson despite two incarcerations before,” she said.
Mr Ashvin asked for a deferment of four weeks, saying Yao has two children and wishes to spend one of their birthdays with them.
She also has an online business that she wishes to tie up loose ends for before serving the relatively lengthy term, he said.
The judge allowed the deferment but Yao has to fork out another S$5,000 in cash bail.
Source: CNA
