Court struggles with unclear plea, leading to oral clarification by the lawyer.
A Singapore judge has reprimanded criminal lawyer A. Revi Shanker for submitting a written mitigation plea that was excessively wordy, convoluted, and riddled with grammatical errors. The document, intended to defend a client accused of cheating, left District Judge Lim Tse Haw struggling to comprehend its content.
In a written judgment dated 11/11/2024, the judge emphasized the need for legal documents to be written in clear and concise language to avoid wasting valuable judicial time. Due to the lack of clarity, Judge Lim requested an oral summary from Mr. Shanker to understand the mitigation.
Case Background
The client, Jeremy Francis Cruez, a 60-year-old Sri Lankan national, was sentenced in October 2024 to six months in jail after pleading guilty to cheating his former employer, Major’s Pest Management Services. The prosecution sought a jail term of 14 to 16 months, but Mr. Shanker argued for a fine instead. Both parties initially appealed the sentence, but Cruez later withdrew his appeal.
Details of the Fraud
As a fumigation manager, Cruez submitted falsified invoices totaling $190,455.60 for fumigation supplies between April 2017 and October 2019. He marked up the prices on these invoices by 5%, intending to pocket the difference. Payments were directed to Cruez or his domestic-helper friend, Myrna, who was falsely identified as a supplier’s accounts executive.
When questioned by the company, Cruez claimed the suppliers preferred cash payments, referencing fabricated e-mails as proof. Believing the deception, the company disbursed the funds.
Judicial Observations
The judge pointed out a specific paragraph in the mitigation that consisted of a single sentence containing 176 words, filled with unnecessary verbosity. Judge Lim verified that the lawyer had personally drafted the plea.
In court, Mr. Shanker clarified that Cruez did not dispute his guilt and had offered to return the $12,953.73 he personally gained, but the company declined the restitution. While rejecting the defense’s call for a fine, the judge also deemed the prosecution’s sentencing request excessive, noting that Cruez had completed the contracted fumigation work.
Judge Lim concluded that a sentence of 14 to 16 months would have been appropriate only if Cruez had pocketed the full $190,455.60 without delivering the services.
Legal Insights
This case highlights the importance of clear legal drafting and ethical considerations in sentencing. The judge’s critique serves as a reminder for legal professionals to prioritize clarity and precision in their submissions.
