Singapore — A man called De Beers Wong Tian Jun who had been jailed for tricking young women into performing sex acts appealed his original sentence, hoping to serve less than three and a half years. He had also been fined $20,000.
He had posed as an agent for wealthy “sugar daddies” and fooled 11 women who were between 18 and 24, into having sex with him. He told them he was “testing” them to be escorts who might earn up to $20,000 a month from rich clients.
He obtained nude photos of the women or filmed his sex acts with them, then threatened to publicise the photos and videos if they did not have sex with him again.
His victims suffered from mental anguish after their encounters with Wong. Some have recurring nightmares. Others lived in fear, paranoia, and anxiety that he would leak their intimate photos or videos.
Wong had pleaded guilty in March to 10 charges, including cheating, criminal intimidation and possession of obscene photos for circulation. On Wednesday, another 26 charges were considered before his sentence was made heavier.
Wong had advertised for women because he couldn’t afford to pay for sex. He lied to the victims who were made to perform sexual acts which he said were part of “testing” for his “sugar daddy” clients.
The harm caused, as well as Wong’s culpability, is at the highest level of cheating, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in explaining why Wong had his jail term increased on appeal.
The CJ rejected a psychiatric report that Wong had hoped would lead to a lighter sentence, ruling that the narrative Wong gave the psychiatrist was “riven with falsehoods”.
“The appellant had procured penetrative sex from the victims, which represented one of the most grievous intrusions of bodily autonomy.
“Not only did the appellant act with clear premeditation and subterfuge, his behaviour was simply cruel. He showed no remorse or doubt whatsoever when going about his spree of offending behaviour.”
A harm-culpability matrix was considered in the sentencing framework for cases of cheating for sex.
For cases of low level of culpability and harm, up to four and a half months’ jail or a fine may be a starting point, but the greater the level of culpability and harm, the longer the jail term given.
For Wong, the Chief Justice meted out a jail sentence of between 33 and 36 months on each cheating charge.
He said in his judgment that he believes an offence of rape could also have been considered in Wong’s case, but added that the offence of cheating could cover Wong’s acts.
“However, I also observe that the offence of cheating simpliciter did not appear to fully reflect the grievous bodily intrusion experienced by the victims on the present facts,” he added.
Wong asked to begin serving his sentence on Jan 10, 2022, and his request was granted.
Wong cooked up his sex scheme in 2015 when he realised he could not afford the prices advertised in online listings. So he advertised for “sugar babes” or paid escorts willing to offer sexual services to “sugar daddies”.
In his ads, he pretended to be a well-connected freelance agent whose clients could pay S$8,000 to S$20,000 a month for those “serious about earning good money”.
Between April 2015 and January 2016, at least 11 women aged 18 to 24 responded to Wong’s ad in a dating app called Locanto. Before referring them to a client, the women first had to send their nude photos or engage in sexual acts with him.
This, he claimed, was a necessary step for “evaluation” by his clients. But there were no such clients, and Wong was just lying to have sex with the women without paying them. /TISG
Read also: Man lures 11 women into sex acts after posing as agent for ‘sugar daddies’
TheSugarBook founders claim website is about empowerment after harsh condemnation in Parliament