Retiree scammed of S$64,000 after computer was 'taken over', man who received the money on trial

SINGAPORE: A retiree who kept his bank account numbers and passwords in his computer was scammed of more than S$64,000 (US$46,729) after a fake tech support technician took control of the device.

The money was later found to have been transferred to two bank accounts belonging to a man he did not know. 

The recipient, thinking he had been given the money by a "well-wisher", redistributed it among his bank accounts and sent more than S$15,000 to his home country of India.

Anil Tripathi, a 51-year-old Singapore permanent resident, went on trial on Monday (Oct 16) for one count of dishonest misappropriation of the funds that were not his.

He maintained that he had not committed a crime, and chose to conduct his own trial via a Hindi interpreter instead of hiring a lawyer.

The prosecution in their opening statement said Anil had dishonestly misappropriated more than S$15,000 from the funds that were transferred to two of his bank accounts in June 2020.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Gan Ee Kiat said bank statements from Anil showed that after he had received the fraudulent transfers from the scam victim, he redistributed the money among his bank accounts, made cash withdrawals and made overseas telegraphic transfers of almost S$16,000 to India.

Mr Gan said Anil was "clearly dishonest" in using the victim's money for his own purposes.

"At no time did the accused have any reasonable basis to believe that the money transferred to him belonged to him," said Mr Gan.

"When confronted in the course of investigations with the transfers, the accused gave an incredible explanation - he thought they were gifts from an unnamed well-wisher."

VICTIM DESCRIBES HOW HE WAS SCAMMED

First up for the prosecution was the victim of the scam - retiree Chiam Hock Leong.

The 68-year-old man said he was using his computer in the afternoon on Jun 3, 2020. 

"When I wanted to switch off my computer to go and have brisk-walking exercise with my wife, the computer turned blank, and then there were a lot of words running," he said. 

"And there's a voice telling me that your computer is crashing, someone is trying to hack into your accounts, please call this number at Microsoft."

He said he panicked and was worried about his computer crashing, so he called the number provided.

A man with a foreign Indian accent answered the phone, claiming he was "Shawn" from Microsoft.

"He said - now you know why you pay so much to buy a software, because when someone is scamming into your computer, we are here to stop it. So let us stop this person from scamming your computer," said Mr Chiam.

He said he was very worried and was on the landline with the man and obeyed his instructions - including keying in his email, his password, and turning off his handphone so that the "scammer" would not be able to hack into it.

Mr Chiam said he was on the call with "Shawn" for two to three hours. He said "Shawn" was very friendly and said he was stationed at Cecil Street, his father was injured in the army and they went to the United States where they opened a convenience store.

"He engaged me in this communication, I didn't know that actually he was taking time to do the scamming process, I didn't know, I thought it was just a friendly conversation," said Mr Chiam.

After a few hours, Mr Chiam wanted to have his dinner as his wife had been cooking in the kitchen while "help" was being rendered.

He said "Shawn" told him that they had to "keep your PC (on) overnight" as the problem was "too big" and could not be solved.

At this point, Mr Chiam said he felt a prompting that he should turn on his handphone - against the scammer's instructions. 

When he did so, he received an entire list of notifications from his bank informing him of multiple transactions that had occurred, siphoning money out of his bank account.

After panicking and being "traumatised", he calmed down, contacted the bank and called his son-in-law, who told him to unplug his computer.

Mr Chiam complied. 

The prosecutor asked Mr Chiam if he knew how the scammer managed to gain access to his bank accounts.

"Well, I kept all my account numbers and passwords and a lot of details I kept in my computer," said Mr Chiam. "And that's the reason why I worried that my computer (would) crash and I (would) lose all of them. He probably accessed my accounts and passwords and did all these transfers."

Mr Chiam lodged a police report that same day on Jun 3, 2020. The related bank accounts were frozen about a day later. While the police recovered about S$49,000 from Anil's accounts, the remaining amount of more than S$15,000 could not be found. 

Anil had allegedly transferred this amount to India, and he was on trial over dishonestly misappropriating this amount.

In cross-examination, Anil asked Mr Chiam if the latter had ever seen him, and Mr Chiam said no.

WHAT SHOULD ANIL HAVE DONE?

District Judge Koo Zhi Xuan asked the prosecution what the right course of action would have been for Anil when he received the money.

Mr Gan said Anil should have verified the source of the transfers. While the prosecutor said there was no evidence linking Anil to the scam, he said this case was no different from someone who found a wallet on the ground.

"In both cases, he knows the wallet is not his, at the minimum, he should not have touched any of the money," said Mr Gan.

He added that there was only S$5 and S$62 respectively at the time in Anil's two bank accounts before the fraudulent transfers were made.

"He doesn't have a basis for thinking the money is his, especially the magnitude of the money we see," said Mr Gan.

The judge then asked if Anil should have gone to the police about the money. Mr Gan said Anil should not have transferred the money between his bank accounts "at the minimum".

"He should have contacted the bank, if not the police, or at least call the bank to make a report that he had received these transfers, for the bank to verify that the transfers were legitimate," said Mr Gan.

The second witness for the prosecution was Deputy Superintendent Lim Kok Seong, who handled the case.

He took two statements from Anil and asked him why he had withdrawn the money without making checks.

In Anil's statement, he said: "I thought some well-wisher helping me, that's why I withdraw some money to repay the loan I owe my friends in India."

According to his statement, he had not provided his bank account details to anyone, and was not in any financial difficulties.

When asked why the funds entered his accounts, Anil responded: "How can I know, sir."

Anil said he was willing to return the seized funds of about S$49,000 to Mr Chiam, and to make restitution of the remainder.

In his cross-examination of DSP Lim, Anil asked if he had contacted the officer about paying in instalments. DSP Lim acknowledged such a discussion, but said Anil had not made any restitution despite having more than a year to do so.

Anil also claimed in court that he had told DSP Lim in the statement recording that he had been receiving money transfers from his father, but DSP Lim denied this.

If Anil had done so, DSP Lim said he would have included it in the statement.

The trial continues.

The penalty for dishonest misappropriation is a jail term of up to two years, a fine, or both.