SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/Asia News Network): A 70-year-old man who went out on his personal mobility device (PMD) with S$9,000 one early morning four years ago, and exchanged the cash for a bag of drugs, was convicted of heroin trafficking on Friday (April 14).
Packets of heroin were recovered from the PMD belonging to Low Sze Song, a Singaporean, after his arrest.
Sivaprakash Krishnan, the 35-year-old Malaysian who handed him the drugs, was similarly convicted of trafficking not less than 43.2g of pure heroin.
The law provides for the death penalty if the amount of heroin trafficked exceeds 15g.
Both men were found by the High Court to be drug couriers, which means they are eligible to be sentenced to life in prison instead of the death penalty if specific conditions are met.
Under the law, drug couriers can get life imprisonment if they are certified by the prosecution to have substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in disrupting drug trafficking activities, or if they had a mental abnormality that substantially impaired their responsibility for their acts.
At about 6.20am on May 30, 2019, Sivaprakash was on his motorcycle when he approached Low, who was waiting with his PMD at Sumang Walk in Punggol.
They travelled on their respective vehicles to a nearby bus stop, where Sivaprakash handed Low a white plastic bag containing packets of drugs, while Low passed Sivaprakash a stack of cash totalling $9,000.
Low was arrested by CNB officers at the lift lobby of his Buangkok Crescent home at about 6.45am.
Around the same time, Sivaprakash was arrested by another team of CNB officers near his workplace at Sungei Kadut. The cash was recovered from his motorbike.
Both men were jointly tried before Justice Dedar Singh Gill in a trial that began in July 2022.
Prosecutors contended that the two men were in possession of four packets of drugs, which was corroborated by DNA evidence found on the drug bundles and the plastic bag.
Low challenged this, arguing that Sivaprakash only handed him three packets of drugs.
He argued that the fourth packet, which contained not less than 8.64g of heroin, was not recovered from the PMD.
He relied on a photograph that showed the plastic bag and three packets of drugs. The photo was used by a CNB officer to record a statement from Low, who was not questioned about the fourth bundle.
Both men also argued in their defence that they had no knowledge of the nature of the drugs.
In his written judgment on Friday, Justice Gill rejected their contentions.
He said Low’s assertion that he did not check the contents of the plastic bag was at odds with the undisputed evidence that his DNA was found on the interior of the bag.
Low had also argued that the circumstances were not so highly suspicious that he should have enquired into the contents of the bag.
He said he was instructed to pass $9,000 to a man wearing a red helmet, and did not consider it a large sum of money in light of his history with crimes including armed robbery, association with secret societies, and credit card fraud.
But the judge said it was a substantial sum, which would naturally have raised questions in the mind of any reasonable person of the nature of the contents of the bag.
Sivaprakash argued that he believed that he was delivering “paan parak”, a form of betel nuts, because an acquaintance had asked him to do so, but Justice Gill found this to be implausible.
He said: “Sivaprakash was unable to explain why, if he really believed that the drug bundles were ‘paan parak’, there was a need to pack and deliver them in such a clandestine manner as that which took place, why he was paid RM1,000 to make a delivery of ‘paan parak’ and why he received $9,000 in cash from Low in the course of the delivery.”
Justice Gill also concluded that the fourth drug bundle was in fact recovered from the PMD.
He said the omission of the fourth bundle from the photo does, at first blush, gives room to pause. But the testimonies from the arresting CNB officers relating to the search of the PMD were convincing and corroborated by a field diary entry recorded by one of the officers, he said.
In addition, Low’s DNA was found on the adhesive sides of the taped packaging of the fourth bundle.
“In light of this, the omission of the fourth drug bundle from the photograph and from Low’s contemporaneous statement was perhaps a lapse, but insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that the fourth drug bundle had not been seized from the PMD.”
