CAD officers seizing films?
Most of you all should be already aware of the ongoing Ren Ci probe. I, although am paying attention to the case with great interest, however will not be discussing the case in this post. Instead, I will be looking at another case, which is somewhat linked to the probe, which caught my interest.
As most of you all should already know, Mr. Pang Leong Chuan, a former personal assistant of the Venerable Ming Yi, was charged with having 138 obscene and uncertified films and that these films were found & seized from an apartment where Ming Yi sometimes stayed and where Mr. Pang is believed to have stayed before.
What I found interesting was that according to this Straits Times report, it was officers from the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) that found and seized the films.
With the above in mind, I can't help but wonder: is it within the CAD's powers to seize films? And were the CAD officers searching the apartment specifically for the films or were they searching for evidence related to the Ren Ci probe but incidentally found the films and decided to seize them?
Also, if the CAD had a search warrant to search the apartment, did their search warrant allow them to seize stuff unrelated to the Ren Ci probe? Or did they went beyond the limits of their search warrant?
Well, I checked the CAD's website and it seems that the CAD is only in charge of investigating white collar crime. Hmm... Is the possesion of obscene and uncertified films a white collar crime? Although I am not certain what can be classified as a white collar crime in Singapore but I doubt that possession of illegal films is a white collar crime.
And if it is not the CAD which investigated this case of possession of illegal films, then I got another question: is it allowed for officers of one police department to pass on evidence they found at a place (but unrelated to the case that they are investigating) to another department for further action?
I don't have the answers to these questions so if any of you all have the answers, please enlighten me...
As most of you all should already know, Mr. Pang Leong Chuan, a former personal assistant of the Venerable Ming Yi, was charged with having 138 obscene and uncertified films and that these films were found & seized from an apartment where Ming Yi sometimes stayed and where Mr. Pang is believed to have stayed before.
What I found interesting was that according to this Straits Times report, it was officers from the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) that found and seized the films.
With the above in mind, I can't help but wonder: is it within the CAD's powers to seize films? And were the CAD officers searching the apartment specifically for the films or were they searching for evidence related to the Ren Ci probe but incidentally found the films and decided to seize them?
Also, if the CAD had a search warrant to search the apartment, did their search warrant allow them to seize stuff unrelated to the Ren Ci probe? Or did they went beyond the limits of their search warrant?
Well, I checked the CAD's website and it seems that the CAD is only in charge of investigating white collar crime. Hmm... Is the possesion of obscene and uncertified films a white collar crime? Although I am not certain what can be classified as a white collar crime in Singapore but I doubt that possession of illegal films is a white collar crime.
And if it is not the CAD which investigated this case of possession of illegal films, then I got another question: is it allowed for officers of one police department to pass on evidence they found at a place (but unrelated to the case that they are investigating) to another department for further action?
I don't have the answers to these questions so if any of you all have the answers, please enlighten me...
Posts
2 comments:
What I find disgusting was the Straits Times painting Ming Yi to be blacker than black. Front page - picture of a young chap and the sentence ' coming home late with 2 men' - made the main newspaper - as worthy as a UK 50 cents tabloid.
(was that necessary?)
I find that it is really sad, after the fiasco of Tan Lead Shake and how ST tries so hard to paint people blacker than black - esp people they have decided they don't like.
And all that long silence after Ong Chit Chung death and Mrs Lee KY.
Indeed very strange why the States Times chose to put an unusually large picture of the young man's face on its front page. So far this young man appears to have very little to do with the monk's fraud, forgery and misappropriation of funds. Makes me wonder if the States Times have some unsavoury hidden agenda here.
Post a Comment