Swinger couple fined over husband's photos of wife posing nude in public

SINGAPORE: A "swinging" couple who took nude photos in public places on 18 occasions and offered paid subscriptions for nude content was fined by a court on Thursday (Oct 13).

Jeffrey Chue Tze Jeong, 50, was fined S$14,000 while Nguyen Thi Anh Thy, 30, was fined S$9,000.

Chue pleaded guilty to three charges of conspiring to take photos of his nude wife in public, uploading obscene images to Twitter and obstructing justice by claiming he had lost his phone. Another two charges were taken into consideration. 

Nguyen pleaded guilty to two charges of appearing nude in public and obstructing the course of justice. Both paid their fines in full.

The court heard that the couple was part of a community of "swingers" between December 2019 and May 2020.

According to court documents, those who subscribe to a "swinging" lifestyle typically have more than one sexual partner, drawn from or outside of the community.

The couple was first introduced to the community through a website called the Undertable Swinger's Community (USC) in December 2019. It is an online membership-based platform for swingers, where patrons post pictures and videos of their swinging experiences.

Around Jan 9, 2020, Chue and Nguyen took photos of a "sexual experience" with a third person at a hotel, and posted them on USC.

These were "well-received" by the community and led to the couple gaining many followers, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Thiagesh Sukumaran.

POSTING CONTENT TO STAY POPULAR

In order to maintain their popularity on the USC website, Chue began posting content of Nguyen in various stages of nudity, with her consent.

She appeared nude in public on 18 occasions between January 2020 and May 2020, at multiple locations in Singapore. These included supermarkets in Great World City, IMM Jurong and Geylang; a Toast Box outlet at VivoCity; as well as the vicinity of the ArtScience Museum, Haji Lane and Mount Faber.

To garner more followers and to become USC's "number one couple of the year", Chue set up a Twitter account around February 2020 and uploaded watermarked photos of his wife in varying stages of nudity.

Chue used the Twitter account, which was made public sometime before May 2020, to entice followers to subscribe and pay for more content of Nguyen, via a private Telegram chatroom.

From this, he made US$7,805.73 (S$11,207) in a PayPal account and S$1,375.44 in a bank account.

On May 16, 2020, the police received a report about a woman exposing herself in public. An attached video, which showed Nguyen at Great World City flashing her chest, had been disseminated to the public by unknown parties two days before.

The police began investigating the couple and arrested them on May 18, 2020. They raided their home on suspicion of prostitution-related activities.

LIED TO POLICE

While giving a statement to a police officer, Chue lied about the whereabouts of his phone. He claimed he had lost it after visiting Great World City, and said he suspected that a person had picked up the phone and posted the video online. 

The couple lied because they were worried over the phone containing several pictures of themselves.

But at the same time, they did not want to delete the contents of the phone as the compromising photos of Nguyen held "sentimental value" for both of them, the court heard.

The phone had actually been placed in a bag with a padlock, and passed to a friend for safekeeping. It was eventually retrieved and surrendered to the police in June 2020.

The prosecutor Mr Sukumaran asked for a fine of S$11,000 for Chue and S$8,000 for Nguyen. He said Chue went to the trouble of designing a business plan with subscription options to monetise his wife's nude media.

They also repeatedly had Nguyen appear nude in public so that provocative photos and videos could be captured, said Mr Sukumaran.

ACCUSED IS A FAMILY MAN: LAWYER

Lawyer Tito Isaac said Chue was a first-time offender and a loving husband, devoted father and family man.

He described the couple's swinging activities as a "hobby cum passion".

Nguyen's lawyer Paul Loy said the couple had lied about the phone as they were concerned about "potential exposure from further leaks of what they say are their private and sentimental documents".

The photos were not taken to be leaked to the public at large - "the point was to document their own personal journey of discovery", said the lawyer.

Mr Loy said the couple have learnt their lesson and completely left their swinging lifestyle behind.

In sentencing, District Judge Janet Wang said: "The choice of one's lifestyle, conventional or otherwise, is a personal and private matter."

However, when this encroaches into public spaces and involves an "overt expression of moral perversion or corruption" as in the case of Chue and Nguyen, deterrence must feature in sentencing, she added.

"It is irrelevant that the platform caters to consenting parties," said Judge Wang. "The objection lies in the obscene nature of the materials being disseminated on the platform. That the obscene materials were circulated to a limited segment of society does not (detract) from the potential of (harm) to a wider public."

She said it was equally aggravating that Chue capitalised on the obscene material and applied entrepreneurial skills to accrue financial gain.

The judge said she had "little empathy" for both accused, as they went into "this enterprise with their eyes open" and should have been "alive to the risk of dissemination".

The penalties for appearing nude in a public place are a jail term of up to three months, a fine of up to S$2,000, or both.

For obstructing the course of justice, a person can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$5,000, or both.

For transmitting obscene images by electronic means, an offender can be jailed for up to three months, fined, or both.