Friend In Trouble With The Law

[Guest LordDenning]

Here's a dilemma my friend faces (True Story):
He posted an ad in the casual encounters section of a classified ads website- locanto.sg. In the ad, he mentions that he is experienced and is seeking sex with guys in a hotel, and leaves his phone number.
A con man, pretending to be representing a legitimate business then contacted him via the number and swindled him of 4 iphone S5 he owns.
He wishes to report the case to police, but every police station he goes to would ask "how did the guy get your number?"
Should the con man be brought to court, the judges would ask the same question too. Then wouldn't my friend have to tell the truth under oath and admit to having sex with men previously? So now, the police force are asked to not proactively prosecute gays for 377A, what about the judges and attorney general? 

[Guest Guest]

Why would a person own 4 iphones?

[abang]

No case at all.. 

One question, did your friend handed in 4 phones at the same time or one after another?

 

#2 is right - most of us have a second phone (usually the older model) but owning 4 simultaneously?

Is he running a "loan-shark" business?

 

If you can furnish more details, we may be able to offer some guidance...

[Guest Raiden Alpha]

Your friend open handphone shop is it?

Either accept his loss and let the swindler get away with it or just admit he is gay and spill the beans out.

The phones should have imei verification numbers and he should also have proof of purchase/receipts to help him recover back his phones.

Just be prepare to show up on tabloids if he go public. But still worth it lah,fucking backside is common nowadays and being a gay is no big deal.

Don't let people use your fear and shame to extort/control you.

[Guest LordDenning]

@guess

The guy wanted my friend to sign up 4 lines as he claim to be working for an 2nd hand iPhone shop at Clifford centre.

He told my friend that he works for the shop and he is the relative of the shop owner.

my friend was told he will get 300 dollars and all bills relating to the contract with the mobile company will be paid by him.

my friend decided to trust him, but to ensure payment and the man's particulars were correct, wrote down a contract for the so called "2nd hand iPhone shop assistant".

The contract required the man to write down his address, name, nric and telephone No. Which the guy filled. When asked for his IC, the man claim he forgot to bring it.

My friend being a blur sorting, didn't check because he knew the number written down on the contract was real as it was the number the conman contacted him with.

After the 1 phone was bought at m1, the man says he ran out of cash and suggested they go down to his uncle's iPhone exporting business at Clifford

Centre. There, the man asked my friend to wait outside the shop, while he left the phone with his uncle and collected money.

After that, he brought my friend to more iPhone shops to sign up 2 more mobile plans and told my friend to wait till 7pm for his shop uncle to close his shop and meet them at bugis junction to get more cash and pass him the phones bought. The uncle was the same person my friend saw from outside the 2nd hand shop at Clifford centre.

The man then persuaded my friend to go to plaza singapura starhub to sign up for 1 last mobile line, as staff at the bugis outlet says that each customer is only allowed to sign up to 1 line per day at that particular outlet and they suggested my friend to check with plaza sing store to see if additional lines could be signed.

My friend did so, and they signed the 4th And last iPhone at plaza sing.

Once that was done, the man brought my friend to the posb atm and withdrew 700 dollars as payment.

my friend protested, saying he was promised 300 per line, but the conman pretended to call his uncle and said his uncle will only pay 750.

my friend grudgingly accepted the 750 but then the man claim that he should get a commission of 50 dollars for helping him find such a good deal. He also promise my friend commission if in the future, my friend were to reccommend other people to him. So my friend gave him the 50.

The next day, my friend tried contacting the man, but the phone just went "end of call" immediately. Feeling worried that he might not be able to contact the guy, he decided to check the address, which turns out to be false; the man claim to live on the 10 floor of a HDB flat in Tampines with only 4 storeys.

My friend then when to the Clifford centre shop and asked the so called uncle if the conman was related to his shop or his relative, to which the "uncle" said no and the conman was lying.

so what should my friend do now?

also please analyse if there is a valid contract, and what are its terms. In addition to that, please see if the conman is breaking any of Singapore's laws. Thanks!

[Guest LordDenning]

Additional information:

#conman's fake particulars were written on the contract before it was signed by both parties (address is fake and phone number is uncontactable for almost 2 weeks- immediate "end-of-call", while name and IC are not known to be real or fake)

#conman said he was employed by the 2nd hand shop, whose owner is his blood uncle, who did a lucrative business selling iPhone to foreign countries. That was told to my friend before contract was signed

#The street value of the 4 phones combined is worth more than the 700 paid by the conman last Thursday before the release of iPhone 6 this week. Mint condition iPhone 16gb

[Guest LordDenning]

Additional information (cont')

Yesterday, my friend confronted the "uncle" at Clifford centre. The uncle says the man doesn't work for the shop and is not his relative. However, he claims that the man came to his shop many times to sell phones

[onlylonely]

Call the police lar.

[Guest LordDenning]

Additional infor:

The police claims it's a civil contract case; my friend have to suffer loss when the guy doesn't pay up to file a civil suit against him.

however, my friend would be unable to do so due to lack of particulars- in civil cases, you need particulars of the person you are suing for the court to send him a letter of summon to the courts.

Therefore, we need to find if this guy is breaking any criminal law in order to get the police to trace his identity.

His face and true particulars can be found at plaza singapura posb atm, and only the police have the warrant to ask the bank for assistance in retrieving that information

[Guest guest]

never know  BW forum become a private dectective for the members to help search for lost iphone.I lost my undies at swimming pool toliet any one can help to  find it back  for me.

[Guest Guest]

This is a glaring example on why 377a should be repealed.

Another way to get the conman is through social media, if manage to get his photo

[Guest LordDenning]

"never know  BW forum become a private dectective for the members to help search for lost iphone.I lost my undies at swimming pool toliet any one can help to  find it back  for me."

 

This is not a case of misplacing your belongings; it is someone actively trying to get you to do something you wouldn't do if not for the false information he provided, such as being an employee of a shop which turns out to be false. Giving fake address, and terminating the mobile line written on the contract. There is reason to suspect the name and IC written are false too. Also, note that the conman gave such information before the contract was agreed and signed in paper. (Fake particulars given on contract before it was signed by both parties.)

 

The problem is whether the police can recognize this is actually a criminal offence in the Penal code:

(Chapter 17, Section 417)---- taken from http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=094a8327-64f1-4979-8480-8ea8ca392589;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22025e7646-947b-462c-b557-60aa55dc7b42%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#pr415-he-.

 

Cheating

415.  Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

[51/2007]

Explanation 1.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Explanation 2.—Mere breach of contract is not of itself proof of an original fraudulent intent.

Explanation 3.—Whoever makes a representation through any agent is to be treated as having made the representation himself.

[51/2007]

Illustration

(a)

A, by falsely pretending to be in the Government service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

(b)

A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(c)

A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(d)

A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e)

A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money.A cheats.

(f)

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

(g)

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of pepper which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the pepper, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.

(h)

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.

(i)

A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Zwithout disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

(j)

A, playing with false dice, or marked cards, wins money from B. A cheats.

[indian PC 1860, s. 415]

Cheating by personation

416.  A person is said to “cheat by personation”, if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or an imaginary person.

Illustration

(a)

A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A cheats by personation.

(b)

A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.

[indian PC 1860, s. 416]

Punishment for cheating

417.  Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

 

The problem is the police are unable to recognize the case for what it is, and assumes that it is a contractual matter. ://

 

Also, the judges would question my friend to create a chronological sequence of events that lead up to the crime; so my friend were to simply say they met online would not be sufficient for the records. The "when, where and how" they met would be needed. My friend would have to say he left his number in the casual encounters ad for man looking for man for sex.

 

[Foo Desmond]

i dont understand y the police are unable to recognise the case as a criminal case, as u clearly and rightly pointed out the offence being committed is cheating (by personation).  how ur friend was contacted by the cheater doesn't change the fact he was cheated. did the police ask how ur friend was contacted? and if so, why would the answer "the cheater contacted me through my mobile phone out of the blue, I have had no contact with him before" not suffice (how did ur friend know the scammer got his number from the forum)? even when the case goes to trial in criminal or civil court, how the scammer got ur friends number is an irrelevant fact, and need not be pleaded.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest LordDenning]

The police claims that my friend wants to earn the 700 that's why they are not pursuing the matter.. :-/

[FirsTimer]

It's a trade... does he have evidence regarding the swindling... and does he have the evidence to prove himself that he broke 377A.

which holds more strongly. with none, the police can do little.

if the conman is caught, he will blurt out that he had "whatever" with your friend.

so is it safer to let him go

[kys0n]

I don't think there's a strong case for cheating. Your friend handed the phones over because he wanted the $300 per line deal. The guy only gave about less than half that amount per line eventually. He didn't cheat your friend but just breached the original agreement. Hence it is a civil case. The fact that your friend accepted $700 makes it difficult for the police/prosecution to make out a case of cheating. I will elaborate more on this below.

 

The facts you gave are bare (and the advice given here is based only on these scant facts and nothing else), but the fraudulent element here seems to be the person's identity that has allegedly convinced your friend to take on the deal. It is trite law that the inducement need not be the sole or operative element for causing your friend to part with the phones. However, other facts suggest that the identity of this person had little to do with inducing your friend to take up the deal.

 

1. He didn't bother verifying the person's identity with the NRIC.

 

2. Neither did your friend check if the address was real. A simple google search would have uncovered that.

 

3. Your friend also didn't ask the shop uncle if any part of the deal was true, or if the person was indeed working for the shop uncle. Instead, your friend chose to wait outside. He even saw the shop uncle at Plaza Singapura in the evening when the other phones were handed over, but he didn't take the opportunity to ask.

 

4. The only time your friend raised an objection with the whole episode was when the person gave him less money than promised.

 

These facts point to a reasonable suggestion that your friend was induced to do the deal because of the money and not because of the person's identity. Of course I realize that the facts can also be flipped around to be said that your friend was so taken in by the person's deception that he did not question his identity at all, or that the person's identity was one of the reasons for him parting with the phones. However, do remember that your friend did request to view the person's NRIC initially, but decided to take the risk and accepted the person's excuse. That would once against go towards pointing out that your friend was not actually taken in by the identity deception. Instead by knowingly going ahead with the risk, it suggests that the person's identity was really immaterial to your friend and it was the promise of the money that induced your friend .

 

Tough luck. Do remember the police/prosecution has to make out a case beyond reasonable doubt. With the current facts, I can already proffer a reasonable explanation that negates key element of the cheating offence. Hence it probably explains the rejection to treat the case as a criminal one.

 

Also, talk is cheap (i.e. it's just your friend's bare words against the other person, assuming he can be found). Evidence is important and necessary in law. What evidence is there that the person had said he was a relative and worker of the shop owner? The contract at best shows that the man gave a non-existent address, but that alone isn't indicative of anything since it could be a simple error in writing (especially if all parts of the address is correct except the unit number). Did the contract come with the letterhead of the shop, or stated the person was an employee of the shop? I highly doubt it. 

 

From the civil law point of view, ignoring the problem of locating the person to serve a writ on him, the contract is probably part-oral, part-written. Without sight of the actual written terms, it's hard to determine anything. The contract itself is probably enforceable (unless there is something illegal about purchasing multiple lines from various telcos and re-selling the empty phone, but I don't think there is a problem here), but then your friend agreed to a variation of the terms by accepting the $750 at the end of the day. In fact, he even gave $50 from the $750 as commission to the person, strongly suggesting that he agreed to the re-negotiated price for the services in exchange for future business. The real breach is therefore not the promise of $300 per line for your friend's services, but whether the person will pay for the phone bills for the 4 lines as promised. It will be hard to determine anything else at this point in time until we see what was written and decide what are the likely oral terms that would have been agreed along with the written terms. On the assumption everything your friend said is true, then yes, there is an actionable breach for the payment of the phone bills for the 4 lines as promised. 

[Foo Desmond]

Err Kyson, the sole question is whether or not his friend needs to reveal how the scammer obtained his number. ur last para on the validity of a claim for breach of contract is irrelevant. 

 

S415 cheating offence is engaged "whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement", the cheating offence is made out (and no reasonable doubt is raised), regardless whether his friend was induced partly or mainly by the money. The crux here is that his friend is motivated by the enforceability (which is in turn contingent on the validity of his identity) of the agreement that the scammer would pay for the lines, if not his friend would not have written that contract.

[FirsTimer]

Err Kyson, the sole question is whether or not his friend needs to reveal how the scammer obtained his number. ur last para on the validity of a claim for breach of contract is irrelevant. 

 

S415 cheating offence is engaged "whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement", the cheating offence is made out (and no reasonable doubt is raised), regardless whether his friend was induced partly or mainly by the money. The crux here is that his friend is motivated by the enforceability (which is in turn contingent on the validity of his identity) of the agreement that the scammer would pay for the lines, if not his friend would not have written that contract.

 

 

think they would tell you they need, to know the story to its entirety, to check out who is the spark. better not.

Edited September 23, 2014 by FirsTimer

[kys0n]

Err Kyson, the sole question is whether or not his friend needs to reveal how the scammer obtained his number. ur last para on the validity of a claim for breach of contract is irrelevant. 

 

S415 cheating offence is engaged "whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement", the cheating offence is made out (and no reasonable doubt is raised), regardless whether his friend was induced partly or mainly by the money. The crux here is that his friend is motivated by the enforceability (which is in turn contingent on the validity of his identity) of the agreement that the scammer would pay for the lines, if not his friend would not have written that contract.

 

Oh I was merely explaining to him and you (I note that you asked the same question earlier above) why the police decided not to go ahead with the case. The TS had also asked for assistance with regard to the validity of the contract and its terms in his later posts. 

 

You provided an explanation for making out a case of cheating (he wanted to be certain of the person's identity, hence the written contract and the identity deception induced the handing over of the phones), but I also provided an explanation to negate yours as to why there's no cheating (the identity of the person was immaterial to the friend because he didn't bother to verify anything although he had ample opportunity to do so, and all the friend really cared about was the money thus it was the monetary rewards that induced him to handover the phone). 

 

It is pointless to continue the debate on this matter since there are no further facts/evidence and we don't have a judge. That's what litigation is about anyway. Every side is bound to have a story to run. One set of facts, multiple ways to run the story. Like I said before, ultimately it's all about evidence and whether the police/prosecution feel confident they have the necessary evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably they didn't think there was sufficient evidence hence they dropped the case.

 

As for circumstances of how he obtained the phone number and whether he needs to reveal it is a much simpler matter.

 

If it's a civil claim, he doesn't need to reveal it. But the other side may plead it nonetheless if he thinks it fits his case theory to argue that no such representations were made (e.g. it was all about sex and puppy love). The friend can try to strike that part of the pleading out but it really depends on how the other side pleads it.

 

If it's criminal, it is highly likely a yes. The police are bound to ask how and why the parties met (to give context to the cheating) and these will be recorded. Moreover, it is possible that the defense will wish to raise it as a fact to support their case theory that the inducement was not caused by the identity but by sexual gratification/the two parties had a brief relationship/motivated by money (hence the ad, phone number, and sexual relations).

 

A lot depends on this alleged written contract (both for the criminal and civil aspects of this case), not just for its terms, but also because it functions as evidence of the relationship of the parties itself (whether it was commercial or personal). Was the contract a proper contract with letter head and standard terms? Or was it just a scrap piece of paper entirely conceived on the spot to exchange contact details with no other terms? Without sight of it, it's hard to give a proper evaluation of the friend's prospects. Regardless, revelation of the circumstances under which the parties met is very likely to be revealed to the court, especially if it's a criminal case.

Edited September 23, 2014 by kys0n

[oakandpines]

How can Lord denning not know his law lol

[Guest zoomba]

Isn't this a police case ?

Theft isn't it?

[Guest zoomba]

So after reading the second part of the story.

I felt that imo this is no Case at all .

Afterall your friend is a willing party

[FunT]

I hope the scammer's name is not (Jason/James/watever) Sng Boon Chye.

This notorious guy has conned many AJs into signing up mobile contracts with telco.

 

He has been reported, so his name is in police records. However, police do not consider this a scam as victims were not supposed to engage in such proposals to begin with.

 

Sorry if this case is completely irrelevant. LOL! Too lazy to read everything but yeah,

 

BEWARE of this guy calls SNG BOON CHYE.

Google his name and you can find his details, or reports of his victims.

[oralb]

I believed what others is trying to establish is there is no criminal case, your friend accepted the $750 instead of the original amount ($1200). Hence it is a civil case, he can try claiming from small claims court but dont bet too high hope.

 

As for how he got the guy contact, well unless they had sex, posting online don't necessary equal to offense committed. 

[Foo Desmond]

Oh I was merely explaining to him and you (I note that you asked the same question earlier above) why the police decided not to go ahead with the case. The TS had also asked for assistance with regard to the validity of the contract and its terms in his later posts. 

 

You provided an explanation for making out a case of cheating (he wanted to be certain of the person's identity, hence the written contract and the identity deception induced the handing over of the phones), but I also provided an explanation to negate yours as to why there's no cheating (the identity of the person was immaterial to the friend because he didn't bother to verify anything although he had ample opportunity to do so, and all the friend really cared about was the money thus it was the monetary rewards that induced him to handover the phone). 

 

It is pointless to continue the debate on this matter since there are no further facts/evidence and we don't have a judge. That's what litigation is about anyway. Every side is bound to have a story to run. One set of facts, multiple ways to run the story. Like I said before, ultimately it's all about evidence and whether the police/prosecution feel confident they have the necessary evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably they didn't think there was sufficient evidence hence they dropped the case.

 

As for circumstances of how he obtained the phone number and whether he needs to reveal it is a much simpler matter.

 

If it's a civil claim, he doesn't need to reveal it. But the other side may plead it nonetheless if he thinks it fits his case theory to argue that no such representations were made (e.g. it was all about sex and puppy love). The friend can try to strike that part of the pleading out but it really depends on how the other side pleads it.

 

If it's criminal, it is highly likely a yes. The police are bound to ask how and why the parties met (to give context to the cheating) and these will be recorded. Moreover, it is possible that the defense will wish to raise it as a fact to support their case theory that the inducement was not caused by the identity but by sexual gratification/the two parties had a brief relationship/motivated by money (hence the ad, phone number, and sexual relations).

 

A lot depends on this alleged written contract (both for the criminal and civil aspects of this case), not just for its terms, but also because it functions as evidence of the relationship of the parties itself (whether it was commercial or personal). Was the contract a proper contract with letter head and standard terms? Or was it just a scrap piece of paper entirely conceived on the spot to exchange contact details with no other terms? Without sight of it, it's hard to give a proper evaluation of the friend's prospects. Regardless, revelation of the circumstances under which the parties met is very likely to be revealed to the court, especially if it's a criminal case.

whether the police goes ahead with the case depends entirely whether a criminal offence can be made out, the validity of the contractual claim is irrelevant for that point. I accept that TS asked about the validity of the contract and its terms, I missed that on my quick perusal, my apologies. 

 

I appreciate u might argue its not a clear cut case, but i would say there is a very strong case that his friend was, in part, motivated by the enforceability of the written contract (and therefore a case of cheating is made out), because the price he receives upfront (the promised 300 per phone) would clearly be insufficient to cover the monthly payments for the line. If, as the counter argument presumes, the friend is solely motivated by the money, he is by that motivation also motivated by the enforceability of the contract (and the identity of the counterpart which is essential to enforcement). 

 

If it were a civil case, I agree u would probably be able to strike the pleading out under O18 r 19 for being scandalous and vexatious. If it were a criminal case, I also can't see the relevance of how his number was obtained (i.e. it would not fit under any of the relevancy provisions of the Evidence Act and hence cannot be admitted). As to the investigation by the police, the same question i raise still holds. why would the answer "I did not know how the scammer got my number" suffice, there is nothing on the facts to suggest his hp no was obtained from the forum.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[kys0n]

whether the police goes ahead with the case depends entirely whether a criminal offence can be made out, the validity of the contractual claim is irrelevant for that point. I accept that TS asked about the validity of the contract and its terms, I missed that on my quick perusal, my apologies. 

 

I appreciate u might argue its not a clear cut case, but i would say there is a very strong case that his friend was, in part, motivated by the enforceability of the written contract (and therefore a case of cheating is made out), because the price he receives upfront (the promised 300 per phone) would clearly be insufficient to cover the monthly payments for the line. If, as the counter argument presumes, the friend is solely motivated by the money, he is by that motivation also motivated by the enforceability of the contract (and the identity of the counterpart which is essential to enforcement). 

 

If it were a civil case, I agree u would probably be able to strike the pleading out under O18 r 19 for being scandalous and vexatious. If it were a criminal case, I also can't see the relevance of how his number was obtained (i.e. it would not fit under any of the relevancy provisions of the Evidence Act and hence cannot be admitted). As to the investigation by the police, the same question i raise still holds. why would the answer "I did not know how the scammer got my number" suffice, there is nothing on the facts to suggest his hp no was obtained from the forum.

 

 

I agree with you that whether the police proceed depends on whether a criminal offence can be made out. However, whether the police can make out a criminal offence depends on the strength of the evidence on the facts. If they don't think they can find any evidence, they won't proceed further. I would believe the very fact that the police told TS's friend that it was a civil case and that he did it for the money suggests that the police have already weighed out their options and prospects of succeeding on the facts.

 

Before you bring a matter to court (whether criminal or civil), gathering evidence is crucial. In this case, how do you prove the case besides the bare words of TS's friend? Thus the contract is actually extremely important even in criminal law as documentary evidence. It is not about whether the contract is enforceable, but the factual inferences that can be drawn from the existence of the contract and its terms. It is the only written form of evidence that gives clues as to the relationship of the two parties (e.g. does it state that the person who is contracting with the TS's friend is an employee of a named shop?). Other forms of potential documentary evidence such as the telcos contracts signed on that day or receipts (if any) etc only given evidence that the hand phone transactions took place, but sheds no light as to why the fraud occurred or the identity of the person. If you still can't see the evidential relevance of the contract and its terms (even at criminal law), then I don't think I can go any further to explain this point to you.

 

The reason why that answer to the police won't suffice is because it's a lie that the other person will know. If you're actually advising the TS's friend to lie under oath or in his statement to claim he has no idea how the person got his number, then that would be an extremely dangerous position. Not only is it an offence, it would also seriously undermine the credibility of the TS's friend once the truth gets out in the open. If the other side knows you're lying, trust me, they will make it a point to show it and discredit you in court. Being an unreliable witness is bad enough, much worse if you're shown to be a liar.

 

Moreover, how believable would TS's friend sound if he adamantly insists he had no clue how the person got hold of his number, yet he was more than willing to enter into a transaction with him for no reason at all besides a piece of paper (which TS's friend himself was unable and unwilling to verify the authenticity). You don't do business with people out of the blue. The court will want to know the story which led to the actual transaction because much (if not all) of the fraudulent conduct would have occurred before the actual transaction itself.

 

Anyway, the police will simply ask TS's friend how and why you got to know the person. It's common sense. If you claim you were defrauded by a certain person, everyone (including the court) will want to know how and under what circumstances you got the meet this person. Was he a close friend? Was he a stranger on the streets? If he was a stranger on the streets, how did he approach you and why were you so trusting? As I said previously, it's called context. These contextual facts are relevant for the very purpose of proving/disproving the existence of the inducement by identity. Just giving a far-fetched example, the other side can simply say that how the parties met is relevant because it shows that the parties started from a sexual relationship, and thus the hand phones were gifts of love and it was not given over because the person had claimed he was an employee and relative of a hand phone shop owner (hence we need sight of this alleged contract to know if it was merely an exchange of contacts or a commercial form because it may or may not support such a case theory). 

 

TS's friend can choose to keep his answers simple to the police, but he will be doing no favors to himself once the other side starts with his version of the story. It will only make TS's friend look bad when it is shown that he is not forthcoming and/or unreliable.

[Foo Desmond]

I agree with you that whether the police proceed depends on whether a criminal offence can be made out. However, whether the police can make out a criminal offence depends on the strength of the evidence on the facts. If they don't think they can find any evidence, they won't proceed further. I would believe the very fact that the police told TS's friend that it was a civil case and that he did it for the money suggests that the police have already weighed out their options and prospects of succeeding on the facts.

 

Before you bring a matter to court (whether criminal or civil), gathering evidence is crucial. In this case, how do you prove the case besides the bare words of TS's friend? Thus the contract is actually extremely important even in criminal law as documentary evidence. It is not about whether the contract is enforceable, but the factual inferences that can be drawn from the existence of the contract and its terms. It is the only written form of evidence that gives clues as to the relationship of the two parties (e.g. does it state that the person who is contracting with the TS's friend is an employee of a named shop?). Other forms of potential documentary evidence such as the telcos contracts signed on that day or receipts (if any) etc only given evidence that the hand phone transactions took place, but sheds no light as to why the fraud occurred or the identity of the person. If you still can't see the evidential relevance of the contract and its terms (even at criminal law), then I don't think I can go any further to explain this point to you.

 

The reason why that answer to the police won't suffice is because it's a lie that the other person will know. If you're actually advising the TS's friend to lie under oath or in his statement to claim he has no idea how the person got his number, then that would be an extremely dangerous position. Not only is it an offence, it would also seriously undermine the credibility of the TS's friend once the truth gets out in the open. If the other side knows you're lying, trust me, they will make it a point to show it and discredit you in court. Being an unreliable witness is bad enough, much worse if you're shown to be a liar.

 

Moreover, how believable would TS's friend sound if he adamantly insists he had no clue how the person got hold of his number, yet he was more than willing to enter into a transaction with him for no reason at all besides a piece of paper (which TS's friend himself was unable and unwilling to verify the authenticity). You don't do business with people out of the blue. The court will want to know the story which led to the actual transaction because much (if not all) of the fraudulent conduct would have occurred before the actual transaction itself.

 

Anyway, the police will simply ask TS's friend how and why you got to know the person. It's common sense. If you claim you were defrauded by a certain person, everyone (including the court) will want to know how and under what circumstances you got the meet this person. Was he a close friend? Was he a stranger on the streets? If he was a stranger on the streets, how did he approach you and why were you so trusting? As I said previously, it's called context. These contextual facts are relevant for the very purpose of proving/disproving the existence of the inducement by identity. Just giving a far-fetched example, the other side can simply say that how the parties met is relevant because it shows that the parties started from a sexual relationship, and thus the hand phones were gifts of love and it was not given over because the person had claimed he was an employee and relative of a hand phone shop owner (hence we need sight of this alleged contract to know if it was merely an exchange of contacts or a commercial form because it may or may not support such a case theory). 

 

TS's friend can choose to keep his answers simple to the police, but he will be doing no favors to himself once the other side starts with his version of the story. It will only make TS's friend look bad when it is shown that he is not forthcoming and/or unreliable.

Errrrr as u rightly concede the legal enforceability of the terms of the contract is irrelevant, i rest my case. I don't understand y u conflate the evidential value of the contract with the legal enforceability of its terms. no one is arguing against admission of the contract. of course it has to be admitted - so yes the contents of the contract has evidential value. my only gripe is with the fact that ur analysis as to which terms are enforceable and then subsequently amended is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a criminal offence was committed (whether his friend was induced to do something as a result of an inducement).

 

u have to read my comments more carefully. I said there is nothing on the facts to suggest that the friend's hp no was obtained from the forum. if however, the friend has reason to believe it was obtained from the forum, of course he should not withhold the information during the interview. no one is suggesting that he lie or conceal information. 

 

clearly u are not very familiar with scams, and presume too much of the human nature. some people less cautious and are more trusting. we are also more than familiar with people who part with considerable sums of money to strangers who contact them via email and smses without prior contact. it happens. it is not an incredulous happenstance.

 

no one is claiming the police wouldn't ask the question. so i don't get ur comment on why the police would ask the question. Ur statement "These contextual facts are relevant for the very purpose of proving/disproving the existence of the inducement by identity.", i hope, does not go towards arguing it is relevant for the purposes of admission in court because thats not a valid relevancy section under the evidence act. 

[kys0n]

Errrrr as u rightly concede the legal enforceability of the terms of the contract is irrelevant, i rest my case. I don't understand y u conflate the evidential value of the contract with the legal enforceability of its terms. no one is arguing against admission of the contract. of course it has to be admitted - so yes the contents of the contract has evidential value. my only gripe is with the fact that ur analysis as to which terms are enforceable and then subsequently amended is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a criminal offence was committed (whether his friend was induced to do something as a result of an inducement).

 

u have to read my comments more carefully. I said there is nothing on the facts to suggest that the friend's hp no was obtained from the forum. if however, the friend has reason to believe it was obtained from the forum, of course he should not withhold the information during the interview. no one is suggesting that he lie or conceal information. 

 

clearly u are not very familiar with scams, and presume too much of the human nature. some people less cautious and are more trusting. we are also more than familiar with people who part with considerable sums of money to strangers who contact them via email and smses without prior contact. it happens. it is not an incredulous happenstance.

 

no one is claiming the police wouldn't ask the question. so i don't get ur comment on why the police would ask the question. Ur statement "These contextual facts are relevant for the very purpose of proving/disproving the existence of the inducement by identity.", i hope, does not go towards arguing it is relevant for the purposes of admission in court because thats not a valid relevancy section under the evidence act. 

 

I believe you are the one confused not me. Legal enforceability of the contract was raised when I discussed the civil aspects of the claim, something the TS had asked. I made it a clear point many times that the contract is relevant for the criminal law aspect for its existence and terms because it serves as evidence of the parties relationship. I never stated that it was relevant in criminal law for its enforceability. Also, the amendment/variation of the terms of the contract was also discussed in the civil aspect of the claims, so it is puzzling why you allege I find it relevant with regard to the criminal claim.

 

I do think you need to re-read the Evidence Act more carefully, especially section 9 and 11, if you don't understand how contextual facts are relevant facts. 

 

As for your remaining comments, there is no need to further discuss them because they are all mere speculation. The TS has provided no further facts or authenticated any of the facts here. One thing I can be certain though is that there are definitely more facts that the TS hasn't provided (such as the actual relationship/communication between the TS's friend and this person), but there's obviously a reason why the TS raised the ad on the website in the first place. Even if he hasn't said anything positive to link the ad to the person contacting his friend, there must be a pretty good reason why he chose to raise it. 

 

My advice is simply predicated on the understanding of the above context that the TS had created in his posts. Yours isn't and tries to divorce the facts between relevant and irrelevant. I don't see a problem in this difference at all since only the TS and his friend knows which analysis best suits their factual situation.

[SeannyShortcake]

You lost me at the "my friend is a blur sotong" part.

[Foo Desmond]

I believe you are the one confused not me. Legal enforceability of the contract was raised when I discussed the civil aspects of the claim, something the TS had asked. I made it a clear point many times that the contract is relevant for the criminal law aspect for its existence and terms because it serves as evidence of the parties relationship. I never stated that it was relevant in criminal law for its enforceability. Also, the amendment/variation of the terms of the contract was also discussed in the civil aspect of the claims, so it is puzzling why you allege I find it relevant with regard to the criminal claim.

 

I do think you need to re-read the Evidence Act more carefully, especially section 9 and 11, if you don't understand how contextual facts are relevant facts. 

 

As for your remaining comments, there is no need to further discuss them because they are all mere speculation. The TS has provided no further facts or authenticated any of the facts here. One thing I can be certain though is that there are definitely more facts that the TS hasn't provided (such as the actual relationship/communication between the TS's friend and this person), but there's obviously a reason why the TS raised the ad on the website in the first place. Even if he hasn't said anything positive to link the ad to the person contacting his friend, there must be a pretty good reason why he chose to raise it. 

 

My advice is simply predicated on the understanding of the above context that the TS had created in his posts. Yours isn't and tries to divorce the facts between relevant and irrelevant. I don't see a problem in this difference at all since only the TS and his friend knows which analysis best suits their factual situation.

we are in agreement that the legal enforceability of the contract is irrelevant for determining the criminal offence. great! We are also in agreement that a criminal offence can be made out (since u dropped the point) and that his account that the scammer had no prior contact would not be incredulous. yay!

 

errr i think u need to read the evidence act more carefully - and not make categorial statements like "contextual facts are relevant facts". S11(b) requires the facts to make the existence of facts in issue or relevant facts highly probable or improbable, i don't see the manner by which his phone number was obtained makes the existence of a relevant fact (that they met and discussed terms) highly probable or improbable. the fact that there was an sms saying "lets meet up i have a business proposition" (and the subsequent footage showing them together) is what is probative of the relevant fact. S9 requires the fact to be necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact. none of the subsequent illustrations show that the manner by which one party's contact information was obtained is relevant. that the parties met after agreeing to do so by sms would probably be whats necessary to introduce the relevant fact of them meeting. U cannot couch relevancy in such broad terms as the parties relationship is relevant to the offence. S9 illustration b - which holds that the relations of the parties at the time when the libel was public may be relevant facts - was in the context of libel, where the parties acrimonious relationship would have probative value and go towards showing motive for libel. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[kys0n]

we are in agreement that the legal enforceability of the contract is irrelevant for determining the criminal offence. great! We are also in agreement that a criminal offence can be made out (since u dropped the point) and that his account that the scammer had no prior contact would not be incredulous. yay!

 

errr i think u need to read the evidence act more carefully - and not make categorial statements like "contextual facts are relevant facts". S11(b) requires the facts to make the existence of facts in issue or relevant facts highly probable or improbable, i don't see the manner by which his phone number was obtained makes the existence of a relevant fact (that they met and discussed terms) highly probable or improbable. the fact that there was an sms saying "lets meet up i have a business proposition" (and the subsequent footage showing them together) is what is probative of the relevant fact. S9 requires the fact to be necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact. none of the subsequent illustrations show that the manner by which one party's contact information was obtained is relevant. that the parties met after agreeing to do so by sms would probably be whats necessary to introduce the relevant fact of them meeting. U cannot couch relevancy in such broad terms as the parties relationship is relevant to the offence. S9 illustration b - which holds that the relations of the parties at the time when the libel was public may be relevant facts - was in the context of libel, where the parties acrimonious relationship would have probative value and go towards showing motive for libel. 

 

Well done. Instead of apologizing for misreading my analysis, you brush it off with a "we're in full agreement" stance. Your excitement over our various agreements is duly noted but your lack of an apology is sorely obvious.

 

I pretty much summed everything up in my previous reply and repeat here once more, that only the TS and his friend knows which analysis best suits their facts (facts which they have not authenticated or supplemented). Thus, I do think you're arguing for the sake of arguing by continuing your analysis on your view of the facts, so I'll not take the bait and cease here until TS replies with more facts/updates.

[marriedmly]

exciting debate