Bank Theft Appeal Dashed As Judge Says Two ATM Fraudsters Deserve It
By Malai FadleyRizal

Bandar Seri Begawan - Judge Dato Paduka Steven Chong dismissed an appeal against sentences made by two Malaysians who were convicted in the Magistrates’ Court for ten charges of theft.

Er Boon Hua and Loo Kim Meng were sentenced to a total of 5 years’ imprisonment after they both pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft earlier. Both appellants were also earlier charged with 10 charges of unauthorized use of a protected computer, an Automated Teller Machine (ATM).

However, the Deputy Public Prosecutor withdrew the 10 charges of unauthorized use of a protected computer charges after both, then, defendants, pleaded guilty to the 10 counts of theft.

The appellants were sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment on each of the 10 theft charges to run consecutively.

According to Deputy Public Prosecutor Hj Nabil Daraina, the appellants were arrested in a road block at Sungai Tujoh Police Post on October 7, 2002, suspected of having made unauthorized withdrawals from bank ATMs.

They were in a Mercedes Benz registered QME 1128.

The prosecution explained to the court that both men had come to Brunei Darussalam from Malaysia as ‘gang fraudsters’ intending to make unauthorized withdrawals from bank ATMs.

The police had received information earlier on that the car they were in was seen at several of a particular bank’s ATMs in Bandar Seri Begawan when unauthorized cash withdrawals were made at the ATMs.

It was revealed by the prosecution that the two ‘fraudsters’ had surveyed one particular bank ATM for about two weeks, they both then placed an inconspicuous wireless video camera at the said ATM.

The camera is linked to a monitor placed inside the ‘gang’s’ car which is parked somewhere nearby the ATM. Both appellants had gained details of customers’ card numbers and personal identification numbers from the camera when customers walk in to withdraw cash from the ATM.

The data is then transferred onto the magnetic strips of a blank gold coloured cards using a computer and data transfer device.

On October 5, 2002, both men made ten cash withdrawals from separate accounts at the bank ATM at two different locations. Both men gained a total of $11,800 from the withdrawals.

During their arrest, police seized $21,500 from them.

In the High Court during the appeal, counsel Mr Daud Ismail submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sentences imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was manifestly unjust and excessive.

Furthermore, the counsel ceded that the court had failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors of the then defendants and that the court was unduly influenced by a letter from the ‘victim’ bank and that the court had erred in principle in ordering the sentences to run consecutively.

However, in reply to the reasons put forward by the counsel, the judge pointed out that the sentences imposed by the Magistrates’ Court upon both then defendants were ‘richly deserved’ as the appellants were ‘important members of the fraud gang whose primary role was to make unauthorized cash withdrawals with the cloned cards’.

The judge said the admitted facts of the case by the two men showed that they were important members of the gang and their primary role was to make the cash withdrawals with the ‘cloned’ cards. He said the Magistrates’ Court had ‘quite rightly’ pointed out that the case was not a simple theft but a serious fraud which called for a deterrent sentence.

The judge further said that the Magistrates’ Court had not allowed itself to be unduly influenced by the ‘victim’ bank’s letter to the court and thought that both men were ‘convicted for playing their part in the bigger picture’ and not ‘gullible simpletons which the counsel has attempted to portray them to be’.

The High Court Judge further pointed out that the Magistrates’ Court was neither wrong in principle nor excessive in imposing the sentences to run consecutively.

“The appellants were fortunate that the prosecution elected to withdraw the charges of making unauthorized withdrawals from the ATMs which attracted a penalty of a fine up to $100,000 and imprisonment of up to 20 years. Convictions under the charges would have justified much longer sentences of imprisonment”, said Judge Dato Paduka Steven Chong in reply to the Counsel’s submission. -- Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin

Brudirect.com News