Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 225
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-11-12
- Judges: See Kee Oon JAD
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Chang Jiunn Jye
- Defendant/Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Areas: Words and Phrases — Carrying on a business, Criminal Law — Statutory offences
- Statutes Referenced: Changing and Remittance Businesses Act, Moneylenders Act, Moneylenders Act 2008, Remittance Businesses Act, The Payment Services Act 2019
- Cases Cited: [2021] SGMC 11, [2022] SGMC 62, [2024] SGHC 101, [2025] SGHC 225, [2025] SGMC 32
- Judgment Length: 21 pages, 5,848 words
Summary
In this case, the appellant, Chang Jiunn Jye, was convicted in a Magistrate's Court on two charges under section 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA) for providing payment services without a licence. The charges alleged that the appellant had arranged for the receipt of money from outside Singapore by a person in Singapore without the requisite licence. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence.
The key legal issues in this case were: (1) whether the appellant carried on a business of providing payment services under the PSA, and (2) whether the appellant could be prosecuted for his involvement in the transactions. The High Court also had to consider whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the appellant's conviction, finding that he had carried on a business of providing payment services and could be properly prosecuted for his involvement in the transactions. However, the High Court reduced the appellant's sentence from the original six weeks' imprisonment to four weeks' imprisonment.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The appellant, Chang Jiunn Jye, had come to know of a company called Coeus International Holdings Pte Ltd (Coeus) through his girlfriend's sister, who was a client of Coeus. Coeus provided administrative assistance to international students who wished to study in Singapore. The appellant was also acquainted with the directors of Coeus, Feng Shukun (Feng) and Ng Keng Leong (Ng).
In January 2021, Feng received a call from one Li Xiaona (Li), who was a client of Coeus. Li requested Feng's assistance in changing US$1 million worth of Renminbi (RMB) to US dollars. The appellant happened to be in Feng's office when she received the call, and he told Feng that he provided such currency exchange services. Li subsequently agreed to use the appellant's services.
The appellant then provided detailed instructions to Li, through Feng as an intermediary, on how the currency exchange would be effected. In essence, US$1 million was transferred from Indonesia into Li's bank account in Singapore through an Indonesian remittance company, and Li then arranged for certain sums of RMB to be transferred to various Chinese bank accounts identified by the appellant.
In February 2021, Li again requested Feng's assistance in changing US$1 million worth of RMB into US dollars. Feng contacted the appellant, who agreed to assist Li. The appellant provided detailed instructions to Li, through Feng, on how to effect the currency exchange, which followed a similar process to the first transaction.
Although Li transferred the equivalent of US$800,000 in RMB to the Chinese bank accounts, she did not receive the corresponding amount of US dollars in her Singapore bank account. She thus refused to complete the transfer of the remaining RMB and sought an "IOU" note from the appellant as an assurance that US$800,000 would be transferred to her bank account.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether the appellant carried on a business of providing payment services under the Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA).
2. Whether the appellant could be prosecuted for his involvement in the transactions.
The appellant's main contention on appeal was that he did not carry on a business of providing payment services. This appeal thus presented the court with an opportunity to clarify the relevant test for determining whether a person had carried on a business of providing payment services under the PSA.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court noted that the PSA prohibits persons from carrying on a business of providing payment services without a licence, and not the provision of payment services per se. The court explained that this distinction mirrors that found in other regulatory regimes, such as the Moneylenders Act 2008.
The court then outlined the applicable test under the "Business Inquiry" for determining whether a person had carried on a business of providing payment services. The court stated that the key factors to consider are the degree of system, continuity, and repetition in the person's transactions.
In applying this test, the court found that the evidence suggested the appellant was deeply involved in the transactions and had a personal stake in ensuring their success. The court also found that the transactions had the requisite degree of system, continuity, and repetition, despite the appellant's arguments that there were only two transactions and that they were provided on the basis of friendship.
On the second issue, the court rejected the appellant's argument that he should not have been prosecuted while the other parties to the transactions were not. The court explained that the PSA prohibits the carrying on of a business of providing payment services without a licence, and the appellant's involvement in the transactions fell squarely within the scope of this offence.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction on both charges under section 5(1) of the PSA for providing payment services without a licence. However, the court reduced the appellant's sentence from the original six weeks' imprisonment to four weeks' imprisonment.
In sentencing, the court recognized that deterrence was the dominant sentencing consideration for an offence under section 5(3) of the PSA. The court applied the sentencing framework set out in the case of Vijay Kumar v Public Prosecutor [2023] 5 SLR 983, which established a starting point of three weeks' imprisonment for such offences. The court then applied an uplift of one week's imprisonment to account for the quantum of money involved in the transactions, but significantly moderated this uplift due to the fact that the appellant had given Li S$800,000 in compensation.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant as it provides important guidance on the test for determining whether a person has carried on a business of providing payment services under the Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA). The court's clarification that the key factors to consider are the degree of system, continuity, and repetition in the person's transactions, rather than a requirement that the person be willing to provide services to all and sundry, is a valuable contribution to the interpretation of the PSA.
The case also highlights the distinction between the prohibition on carrying on a business of providing payment services without a licence, and the provision of payment services per se. This distinction is important for practitioners to understand, as it means that even a person who is not in the business of providing payment services may still be liable under the PSA if they engage in certain payment-related activities.
Finally, the case provides guidance on the appropriate sentencing considerations for offences under section 5(3) of the PSA, building on the sentencing framework established in the Vijay Kumar case. This will be a useful reference for courts and practitioners when dealing with such offences in the future.
Legislation Referenced
- Payment Services Act 2019 (Act 2 of 2019)
- Moneylenders Act 2008 (2020 Rev Ed)
- Payment Systems (Oversight) Act (Cap 222A, 2007 Rev Ed)
- Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Cap 187, 1996 Rev Ed)
Cases Cited
- [2021] SGMC 11
- [2022] SGMC 62
- [2024] SGHC 101
- [2025] SGHC 225
- [2025] SGMC 32
- Vijay Kumar v Public Prosecutor [2023] 5 SLR 983
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 225 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.