What can reduce a sentence for cheating in Singapore?

For a full explanation of sentencing in cheating offences, see our page on how the courts decide the sentence.

What can reduce the sentence?

The following have been given weight in decided cases:

• Restitution. Repaying the victim reduces the economic harm and, if it is timely and voluntary, is evidence of remorse:

  • Its effect can be substantial. In the 2026 trade-financing case (Lim Oon Kuin v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2026] 3 SLR 616), restitution that almost halved the bank’s loss on one charge led the High Court to allow 18 months for it on each of the two cheating charges, in place of the six months allowed by the District Court.

  • Late restitution may still count. Restitution made late may still be credited if the delay is explained, for example by the offender’s limited means, as the High Court accepted in the 2013 decision in Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2014] 1 SLR 756.

  • Calculated restitution counts for less. Restitution made on advice, with the calculated purpose of obtaining a lighter sentence, is given less credit.

  • It does not outweigh everything. Restitution does not outweigh serious aggravating features, such as the use of a dishonoured cheque and further offending while under investigation.

• Who benefited. Where the offender was not the person intended to benefit from what the victim parted with, the amount lost may not be an accurate measure of his or her culpability. The courts look at the substance, however. Where the money went to a company that the offender controlled, so that he or she benefited indirectly, this has been given little weight (Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Boon [2026] SLR(StC) 120). Where the benefit was intended for another person, such as a relative or an associate, its effect on the sentence depends on the facts, including the offender’s connection with that person and what the offender stood to gain.

• A mental condition linked to the offending. A psychiatric condition may reduce the sentence where it is properly diagnosed and contributed to the offending. In the 2021 decision in Public Prosecutor v Song Hauming Oskar and another appeal [2021] 5 SLR 965, the High Court reduced the sentence by four months for two diagnosed conditions that had contributed to the offending. The quality of the medical evidence is important: courts have given little weight to a condition with no link to the offending, or to a report based entirely on the offender’s own account and prepared without knowledge of the scale of the offending.

• Old age. In the 2026 trade-financing case (Lim Oon Kuin v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2026] 3 SLR 616), the High Court held that the offender’s old age had been given too little weight and allowed a reduction of 18 months for it on each charge, although his ill health did not justify judicial mercy (i.e., an exceptional power to reduce a sentence on compassionate grounds). By contrast, the psychological impact of imprisonment on a particular offender is generally not a reason to avoid a custodial sentence.

• A plea of guilty (see below).

In a 2026 District Court case involving an assistant manager who diverted $92,508 through his PayNow account (Public Prosecutor v Chai Song Lin [2026] SGDC 4), he at first lied when confronted, then confessed and repaid $10,000. The court fixed a sentence for the base offence (i.e., a single incident of the offence), then increased it for the persistence of the offending over 72 transactions.

The court described that increase as low to moderate because the amount and duration were not extreme and some restitution had been made, and said that a larger increase would have been warranted without restitution. A psychiatric report was rejected because it rested on his own account. His early plea of guilty attracted the full reduction, and the sentence was 20 months and two weeks’ imprisonment.

As the cases show, the outcome depends heavily on identifying the mitigating factors that are relevant and carry real weight on the particular facts, supporting them with evidence, and presenting them at the right stage of the framework.

How does a plea of guilty affect the sentence?

A plea of guilty can have a significant effect on the sentence, and its timing matters. The Sentencing Advisory Panel has issued Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas, which suggest that an earlier plea may attract a larger reduction. The guidelines are guidance only: they are not binding on the courts, and whether a reduction is given, and how much, is for the sentencing court to decide in the circumstances of each case.

In the 2026 District Court case of the employee who diverted PayNow payments (Public Prosecutor v Chai Song Lin [2026] SGDC 4), an early plea attracted a reduction of 30%. In a 2024 case on government grants (Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Boon [2026] SLR(StC) 120), by contrast, a plea entered only on the first day of trial carried little weight.

A plea of guilty admits the offence and gives up any defence. It is therefore very important that the decision whether, and when, to plead guilty is made only after the evidence, the available defences and the mitigating factors have been properly assessed.

How are sentences combined when there are multiple charges?

Cheating charges are often brought together with forgery charges, with money laundering charges relating to the proceeds, and with other cheating charges. Each charge receives its own sentence, and the court then decides which sentences run consecutively (one after another) and which run concurrently (at the same time). Where an offender is convicted at one trial and sentenced to imprisonment for three or more distinct offences, at least two of the sentences must run consecutively (section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010). In the 2026 trade-financing case (Lim Oon Kuin v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2026] 3 SLR 616), for example, two of the three sentences ran consecutively.

The overriding principle is proportionality: the total sentence must fit the offender’s overall criminality. The High Court has explained the main tools in Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 998:

• The one-transaction rule. This is a common law principle, developed by the courts rather than set out in legislation: offences that form part of a single transaction should generally not attract consecutive sentences. Whether offences form part of a single transaction is decided as a matter of common sense, having regard to factors such as how close the offences were in time, place and purpose, and whether they invaded the same legally protected interest.
• The totality principle. The court takes a “last look” at the total. It asks whether the total is substantially above the normal level of sentence for the most serious offence, and whether it would be crushing and out of keeping with the offender’s record and prospects. If so, the court may change which sentences run consecutively, or adjust individual sentences.
• No double counting. The same aggravating factor must not be counted against the offender twice.

Parity and consistency with past cases

Proportionality is also measured against the sentences imposed on others:

• Parity between co-offenders. Where several people took part in the same criminal enterprise, for example a scam in which some are charged with cheating and others with money laundering, their sentences should generally be in line with each other, allowing for relevant differences in their roles and personal circumstances. The High Court has held (Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor [2015] 4 SLR 1120) that this applies even where co-offenders are charged with different offences, and that where co-offenders are sentenced separately, the Prosecution should place their sentences and the relevant facts before the court.
• Consistency with past cases. Courts compare the case with sentences imposed in similar cases, but the comparison must be with the offence actually charged and the law that applied. In the 2026 District Court case of the employee who diverted PayNow payments (Public Prosecutor v Chai Song Lin [2026] SGDC 4), the court treated precedents for criminal breach of trust (i.e., dishonestly misappropriating or misusing property entrusted to the offender) as not directly relevant because that offence carries a different maximum punishment. For the same reason, sentences under section 420 of the Penal Code 1871 decided before 1 February 2008, when the maximum was seven years (it is now ten years), must be read with care.

Other choices also affect the total, such as whether some charges are taken into consideration (i.e., further charges which the offender admits and agrees may be taken into account in sentencing, instead of being tried separately) rather than proceeded with, and whether incidents are combined into a single amalgamated charge, that is, one charge covering several similar acts (see our page on amalgamated charges). These questions involve a number of factors and judgments, and are frequently the subject of submissions on sentence.