Man jailed for submitting forged US divorce decree to Singapore court, says he did not want to be divorced

SINGAPORE: When a man found out that his mother had helped his then-wife hire a lawyer to divorce him, he fabricated a false decree of divorce from a courthouse in the United States, hoping that a Singapore court would assume the marriage had already been dissolved.

Mak Wai Kong, 45, did not show up for any of the divorce proceedings in the Family Justice Courts, as he claims he was told that those who do not want to obtain a divorce will not turn up nor "keep chasing after the court".

Mak was sentenced to 11 months' jail on Friday (Dec 3) for one count of fabricating false evidence to be used in a judicial proceeding, and a second unrelated charge of damaging a mobile camera installed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) at his block to deter high-rise littering.

The court heard that Mak's then-wife commenced divorce proceedings against him in January 2018. In July 2018, the Family Justice Courts received an email sent from his then-wife's email account, claiming that she had successfully completed her divorce proceedings in Oregon, USA.

The email included a decree of divorce, purportedly issued by the Multnomah County Courthouse in Oregon, stating that the divorce had been finalised in June 2018. There was also a false cover letter signed by a purported lawyer based in the US.

The decree also indicated that Mak's flat in Singapore and his then-wife's real estate assets in China and the US were not to be divided.

A Singapore judge detected that the documents were possibly fraudulent and flagged them to the court authorities, before a police report was lodged.

Investigations revealed that Mak had set up the email account in his then-wife's name and sent the email. He admitted obtaining samples of court documents from the Internet and amending them, using the names of a real law firm and courthouse in Oregon, where his then-wife had property.

He also admitted to investigators that he did so so that the Family Justice Courts in Singapore would discontinue proceedings and so that his assets would be protected from division.

Mak's ex-wife later finalised divorce proceedings with him in Singapore, but Mak did not turn up for any of the court hearings.

THE CAMERA-HAMMERING CHARGE

Separately, Mak admitted to a charge of mischief by intentionally damaging a mobile camera installed by NEA at his block in Canberra Street.

The agency had installed the camera to catch high-rise litterers in the act after receiving feedback about cigarette butts being thrown down from high floors of the block.

Mak left his flat at about 6am on Feb 29, 2020, with his face covered with black cloth and carrying a hammer in a plastic bag.

He went to where the mobile camera was installed at the foot of his block and hit it with his hammer, an act that was seen by two neighbours on their way to work.

It cost about S$1,100 to replace the damaged camera parts. Mak initially denied committing the offence and admitted to it only when shown footage of himself in matching attire. He claimed that he just did not like the camera.

The prosecutor called for between 10 and 14 months' jail, noting that no restitution was made for the camera, and that Mak had been "bouncing back and forth" from a guilty plea to pre-trial conferences.

While he created a fake lawyer persona and impersonated his ex-wife, his fabrication of false evidence was not particularly sophisticated and was seen through almost immediately by the judge, said the prosecutor.

Mak, who was unrepresented, told the court that he fabricated the divorce decree because he did not want to divorce his wife.

"This is a very heartbreaking event, when I received the writ of divorce," he said. "As the initial documents were being filed and sent to me, I wasn't sure whether is it a truthful document or somebody fabricate it from other places, therefore I wanted to test it out and see whether is it the real thing or is it a false document being done at their end."

District Judge Bala Reddy asked him if he had contacted the Family Justice Courts to clarify if the document came from them. Mak said he did, but added that the court claimed the document was sent by his ex-wife.

IT WAS HIS MOTHER WHO HELPED HIS THEN-WIFE GET A LAWYER

Mak claimed that the matter was quite "confusing", with his mother finally admitting to him that she came up with about S$3,000 to engage a lawyer for his then-wife to obtain a writ of divorce.

"I do not want to proceed with the divorce, therefore I have to come up with a divorce (cert) to eradicate away the writ of divorce," said Mak.

Asked about why he did not turn up for any divorce hearings, Mak said: "Yes, because I totally didn't want to divorce. I talked to the e-litigation (personnel) at Chinatown ... they told me, those who want to divorce will come forward to seek divorce. Those who don't want to divorce don't come and keep chasing after the court, that's why I didn't want to divorce and I didn't chase after the court for such a thing."

He said he was currently not working, as his boss wanted to know when his jail term would end before rehiring him as a property officer for condominium projects.

On the mischief charge, Mak said: "I didn't know that this thing happened and I was the one who did it, only when I saw the photograph then I realised I'm the one doing it."

He said he was very "overly stressed" due to work in the period leading up to the "circuit breaker".

"I was half-awake, half-asleep. I believe I (did) it due to sleeping violence," said Mak.

"What? Sleeping violence?" repeated the judge.

"Half-sleeping, half-walking type of situation," answered Mak. "I thought I was using a hammer to hit the wall plug into the wall."

He later withdrew this assertion when told it would qualify the plea.

The prosecutor said the obvious thing that Mak should have done when he received the writ of divorce was to seek legal advice.

"A simple consultation with a lawyer ... would have sufficed," he said. "It's really no excuse for his behaviour."

The judge told Mak that the fabrication of the court document is a very serious offence. He gave him four months' jail for the mischief charge and seven months for the fabrication charge, with both sentences to run consecutively.

When he heard the sentence, Mak asked: "Can I take the sentence in two parts because it's two charges? Can I serve four months first, then after that I serve the seven months?"

The judge told him there was no provision in law for that.

For fabricating false evidence to be used in a judicial proceeding, Mak could have been jailed up to seven years and fined. For mischief causing disruption to a key service, he could have been jailed up to 10 years, fined, or both.