In a recent case that underscores the importance of privacy and trust in customer-service relationships, Loo Lung Tat, a 26-year-old mobile technician at Hi Tech Mobile in Bugis Junction, has been sentenced to three months and six weeks in jail.
According to Channel News Asia, Loo pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing intimate images without consent and another of obstructing justice by deleting the chat and uninstalling the Telegram application.
A third charge was taken into consideration during the trial.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED :
The incident occurred on January 10, 2021, when a 30-year-old man accidentally dropped his phone, requiring a screen repair. He entrusted his phone, along with the password, to his fiancee, who visited the Bugis Junction shop the following day for repairs.
Loo, responsible for repairing the phone, replaced the screen on the same day.
However, instead of returning the device immediately, he decided to test it to ensure the LCD screen was functioning correctly. It was at this point that Loo’s actions took a disturbing turn.
Despite knowing that he was not authorized to access customer data, Loo opened the Telegram application on the device. Within the Telegram chat between the customer and his fiancee, Loo discovered nude and intimate images and videos of the customer’s fiancee.
Approximately 40 of these images were selected by Loo with the intention of forwarding them to himself. To achieve this, he saved his number on the customer’s phone and subsequently sent at least three nude images of the fiancee to his own account.
“stressed at work”
As per the report, Loo later claimed that he forwarded the images due to “stress” and emotional turmoil stemming from a recent breakup.
His actions, however, were soon exposed when the customer, while using his Telegram application, unexpectedly noticed a new chat window with a person named “Jacky.”
In this chat, the customer discovered that multiple images of his fiancee had been sent to this unknown individual. Disturbed and alarmed, the customer attempted to contact “Jacky” but received no response. He even attempted a phone call, which was promptly declined.
Realizing that he had been caught, Loo panicked.
In an attempt to erase evidence and avoid potential legal consequences, he deleted the chat with the customer and uninstalled the Telegram application on his own phone.
The customer, however, promptly reported the incident to the police, leading to Loo’s arrest on the same day.
During the trial, the prosecutor firmly argued for a significant sentence, requesting a jail term ranging from seven to nine months. The prosecutor emphasized that Loo Lung Tat had shamelessly exploited the trust bestowed upon him by the customer to “satisfy his own lust.”
The prosecutor made it clear that Loo’s actions constituted a severe breach of privacy. Not only had he violated the “sanctity” of the customer’s intimate communications and photos with his fiancee, but he had also taken the disturbing step of forwarding these private images to his own account for his personal gratification.
Furthermore, the prosecutor highlighted Loo’s attempt to cover up his misdeed when the customer caught him in the act.
“Entirely identifiable”
Instead of admitting his wrongdoing, Loo took active steps to erase evidence and prevent police involvement. The prosecutor noted that there were no reported cases under the specific section related to possession of or gaining access to voyeuristic or intimate images or recordings. As a result, the prosecutor referred to guidelines for a similar offense involving the distribution of voyeuristic or intimate images or recordings.
Crucially, the prosecutor underscored that the customer’s fiancee was “entirely identifiable” in the images, as her name and photos were included.
“Having committed the offence and having tried to avoid facing the consequences, the accused must now serve his time,” said the prosecutor according to report.
For knowingly possessing intimate images by sending the illegally obtained images to himself, Loo could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.
For obstructing the course of justice, he could have been jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.
- NParks Investigating Dog’s Death at Grooming Salon After Video Goes Viral
- Disciplinary Action Taken Against Raffles Institution Student for ‘Inappropriate’ Costume Choice
- Former Singapore National Basketball Player Sentenced for Drink Driving
- Wife Pressured into Sex Work by Her HIV-Positive Partner For ‘Fast Cash’
- Singapore couple sentenced to jail in Ho Chi Minh City for stealing luxury bags
