Woman gets 6 months' jail for arranging sham marriage so daughter can extend stay in Singapore
SINGAPORE — Hoping to find a way for her daughter to remain in Singapore for a prolonged period of time, Luong Thi My Hang hatched a plan to arrange a paid marriage-of-convenience between her daughter and a Singaporean man.
However, the arrangement was eventually uncovered by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the trio were arrested.
On Thursday (May 4), the 54-year-old Vietnamese woman was sentenced to six months' jail after she pleaded guilty to a charge related to arranging a marriage with the intention of obtaining an immigration advantage for her daughter in the form of a visit pass.
Her daughter Vuong Thi My Tuyen, 31, was sentenced to six months' jail, while the 51-year-old man she married out of convenience, Hoo Khee Hwa, was fined S$8,000 and sentenced to six months' jail in a separate hearing.
It was not mentioned when Vuong or Hoo were sentenced.
HOW IT HAPPENED
ICA’s prosecutor, Assistant Superintendent (ASP) Kelvin Teo, told the court that sometime in 2016, Luong got acquainted with a Vietnamese woman Le Thuy Trieu, also known as "Kim", and expressed her desire to prolong her daughter's stay in Singapore so that she can find a job.
Kim then suggested having Luong's daughter enter a marriage-of-convenience with Hoo, in order to extend her stay. It was not stated in court documents whether Kim and Hoo were acquainted when the suggestion was made.
When Luong told her daughter the idea, she agreed to partake in the sham arrangement and a sum of about S$14,000 to S$16,000 was made to Kim to carry out the ploy.
Both Hoo and Vuong solemnised their marriage at Inspired by Luv Cafe at 7 Canning Rise, where the Registry of Marriages is also located. This was on Aug 19 in 2016, and Luong was one of the marriage witnesses.
The trio were eventually arrested in February this year. It is not known how ICA came to uncover the false marriage and TODAY has sought clarification from the authority.
ASP Teo, who sought the sentence given, said that Luong had knowingly committed an offence since the sole purpose of the marriage was to "obtain a visit pass" for her daughter.
In Luong's defence, lawyer Krinesh B Rengarajoo from LYTAG Law LLP argued that his client's actions were motivated by an "altruistic reason" and that Luong was acting as a mother who was finding a way for her daughter to "live a better life" than she did in Vietnam.
Mr Rengarajoo also said that Luong was not the one who initiated or broached the idea and that "familial ties” should be taken into consideration for a shorter jail term of four months.
In delivering her sentence, District Judge Wong Li Tein said that Luong had played an integral role in enabling the marriage of convenience to happen and had used her daughter "as a pawn" in the scheme.
She added that Luong did not appear to have pressured her daughter or Hoo into the marriage, and she did not take active steps to conceal her offence or enlist the help of others.
However, she noted that Luong did pay a "substantial" amount of money to facilitate the union and such marriage-of-convenience aims to deceive the ICA and Registry Of Marriage into registering the union as a genuine one.
If not taken seriously, it might create a tendency for more individuals with "no real ties to Singapore" to partake in fake marriages as such cases are often "hard to detect", District Judge Wong said.
This could potentially have an impact on genuine marriages by adversely inviting more checks and scrutiny when processing such applications, she added.
In a statement to TODAY, ICA said that it takes a serious view of individuals trying to circumvent Singapore's system by “engaging in, arranging or assisting to arrange marriages-of-convenience to obtain immigration facilities in Singapore”. It will therefore continue to take firm enforcement action against errant couples and middlemen.
For arranging a marriage-of-convenience, Luong could have been fined up to S$10,000 or jailed up to 10 years, or both.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said the trio were arrested on Feb 9 , 2023. This is incorrect. Only Luong Thi My Hang was arrested on Feb 9, while the other two were arrested the day before. We are sorry for the error.
