And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumb line
Isa 28:17
Names have been redacted for privacy reasons.

Criminal Cases


I. Vengeance Gone Wrong

Alex, Bob, Charles and Diana were good friends. Diana, who was much younger, was like a little sister to them. One day, to their shock and horror, Diana told them that one Eric, a classmate of hers, raped her at a class chalet when she was drunk. Alex, Bob and Charles were furious and decided to beat up the rapist to teach him a lesson and to take revenge for Diana.

Alex used an unknown number to pose as a girl and started to talk to Eric on Whatsapp. Eric tried to lure “Alex” out and clearly wanted to trick “her” into having sex with him. Alex played along, making an appointment at a secluded car park so they could “get naughty”.

On that day, Alex, Bob and Charles ambushed Eric in a secluded car park and beat him up. Eric thought that he was being robbed. He was in pain and pleaded with them to stop beating him. He struggled to hand his wallet and iPhone to the trio. Bob, confused, just took the wallet and iPhone before they ran off separate ways. Bob later realised how foolish it was and threw the wallet and iPhone in a dustbin some distance from his home.

The trio was arrested for robbery. They were shocked to be faced with at least 2 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane - all because they wanted to teach Eric a lesson and stand up for Diana.

Following representations made by us, the robbery charge against the trio was eventually dropped. The Prosecution proceeded on Voluntarily Causing Hurt and agreed to a Probation Report and Reformative Training Centre Report (RTC Report). The Court gave probation for all three of them.

II. Romance Gone Wrong

Ah Mei met Brutus in at a pub. Ah Mei chatted with him and found him interesting. She fell for him. They continued meeting and eventually got intimate.

Ah Mei was devastated when one day she saw Brutus with another woman. She, being a mild person, decided not to confront him there and embarrass him. She texted him about what she saw, but Brutus refused to talk to her. He remained uncontactable and refused to meet her. Ah Mei, confused, sent Brutus a picture of them in bed and an accompany text message reading “Do you want to meet me now? I will send your nude pictures to your company.” He revealed that he was married with children. Ah Mei felt so betrayed.

Brutus eventually met Ah Mei at a HDB void deck, But not before calling the police to lay an ambush for Ah Mei. Ah Mei was surrounded by plainclothes police officers. She, feeling even more betrayed, panicked and grabbed Brutus’ collar and screamed at him in plain view of them.

Ah Mei was charged for Extortion with a compulsory imprisonment of at least 2 years and Voluntarily Causing Hurt.

After we made representations, the Extortion charge was reduced to one of Criminal Intimidation, for which Ah Mei was fined. The Voluntarily Causing Hurt charge was taken into consideration (not proceeded on).

III. Curiosity Gone Wrong

Alan was a young and inquisitive boy. He was doing relatively well in school. He was slightly shy did not have a lot of friends nor mix around with people.

Alan came to learn about marijuana on the Internet and became curious. He learnt how to cultivate marijuana plants in his own home and started to grow some. He smoked marijuana on his own at first. He then started supply and selling other drugs to people in order to earn social acceptance.

Alan was caught and charged with cultivation, consumption and trafficking of drugs, including marijuana. Cultivation warrants a minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment while trafficking warrants a minimum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.

Meanwhile, Alan, on our advice, enrolled himself into a youth residential programme with a local halfway house. During this time, he was subject to a strict regimental and disciplined lifestyle. He also received counselling and would participate in community services to the less fortunate.

The Court called for a Probation Report and a Reformative Training Centre Report (RTC Report). The Probation Officer found that the change in living conditions and environment contributed to Alan’s rehabilitation. Alan was given probation.

IV. Entrepreneurship Gone Wrong

Andrew, Barry, Colin were employed by a major flag carrier as country managers, each based out of a different country. Independently, they sent up a local company and tendered for contracts with the carrier. Throughout the transactions, they kept their interests in the company a secret. They were subsequently arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and investigated for acts of corruption.

Statements were recorded from them that may have prejudiced them.

After representations were put in to clarify what had taken place, CPIB dropped the matter and no further action was taken against them. The matter was determined to be a civil matter more suitably resolved in the civil court.

 


Family Cases

I. Prison Break-up

Polly, the Plaintiff wife, initiated divorce proceedings against Dennis, the Defendant husband, while he was serving a prison sentence. There was one young child to the marriage. Dennis engaged us to defend him. Defending a suit while in prison the ultimate nightmare. Dennis’ communications with us were severely limited to only face-to-face interviews which had to be arranged well in advance.

Polly initially applied to get sole custody, care and control in respect of the child, allowing only weekend access to the Dennis, citing grounds that Dennis has been in prison and would be a negative influence to the child. Dennis, however, loved the child a lot and could not bear to spend time apart from him.

The Court granted joint custody, with care and control to Polly. Access was given on Tuesday evenings in addition to weekends so that the child could have dinner with Dennis and his extended family. The Court also granted access on alternate public holidays and half of school holidays to allow Dennis to take the child for overseas holidays. The Court ordered a reasonable sum of maintenance for the child, taking into consideration his financial status after having served a jail term. Polly did not get any maintenance.

II. For richer, but not for poorer

Paul, the Plaintiff husband, engaged us to initiate divorce proceedings against Debbie, the Defendant wife. Paul ran his own business while Debbie was employed as a staff of the company alongside doing real estate sales. Paul’s business was doing very well until certain government regulations changed the face of the industry completely. His business took a nosedive and personal debt accumulated as a result. Debbie on the other hand began to excel at her real estate sales and eventually left the employ of Paul to pursue her own career. There was one infant child to the marriage.

The divorce was granted on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. Debbie would keep late nights, partying and clubbing. She would spend exorbitant amounts of money on travel, shopping and dining, often without the child. The marriage broke down irretrievably.

For a 4-year marriage, Debbie was only given $1.00 nominal maintenance. Paul bought over Debbie’s share of the matrimonial home and was ordered to pay a reasonable monthly maintenance for the child. Debbie was given care and control of the child because of the child’s tender age.

III. Unequal contributions

Pam, the Plaintiff wife, engaged us to initiate divorce proceedings against Dan, the Defendant husband. The marriage was lasted some 22 years and there were two dependent children aged 20 and 18 studying in university and polytechnic respectively.

The matrimonial flat was held as tenants in common, with Pam holding 86% and the Dan holding 14%. This manner of holding was registered with HDB after the completion of the purchase of the property, reflecting the direct contributions of parties in both CPF and cash components.

Pam’s indirect contributions outweigh Dan’s significantly. Pam was the primary care giver of the 2 children, whose academic performance reflects the success and dedication of Pam. She took care of the financial needs of the home, as well as household chores. Further, she was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. Despite that, Dan was caught having an affair and even shamelessly admitted this to the children and family members.

Dan also sought to hide his assets and income in the Affidavit of Assets and means. He under-declared his income when he led an extravagant lifestyle of frequent travel and expensive purchases. Pam argued for an adverse inference to be drawn against him.

The Court eventually awarded Pam 100% of the matrimonial property (without refund to Dan) in recognition of her indirect contributions to the marriage and children. Dan was also ordered to contribute to the maintenance of the children.

IV. Runaway husband

Pauline, the Plaintiff wife engaged us to initiate divorce proceedings against David, the Defendant husband notwithstanding that 3 years have not passed since the date of the marriage. There has to be exceptional hardship in the marriage for this exception to be made.

David was physically and verbally abusive. A Personal Protection Order was taken out against him. He was not concerned about Pauline nor the infant child of the marriage. Further, David, who was a foreigner, absconded from Singapore. He shipped all his belongings out of the matrimonial home, closed all his bank accounts, and even cancelled his Permanent Residency status. He could not be contacted through any means.

The Court eventually granted sole custody, care and control to Pauline and ordered David’s entire share in the matrimonial home to be transferred to Pauline despite Pauline’s financial contribution being 48%.

REQUEST A FREE CONSULTATION
Fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation
Reload Image
   
 
Contact Information
101A Upper Cross Street
#12-17 People's Park Centre
Singapore 058358

Tel : (+65) 6533 4833
Fax : (+65) 6532 7408
Email : enquiries@kalco.com.sg
Late consultation days till 7pm:
Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

For 24 hours emergencies please contact Ravinder (Criminal & Civil) at
9680 5899
/ Rina (Family) at
9690 3604