The Valuation of Items on the Charge Sheets: The Broken & Counterfeit Watches
The four charges originally included about 144 items estimated to be worth around S$50,000.
Some of the items and their values include:
Some of the items and their values include:
In Court, Defence counsel, Balchandani, asked Assistant Superintendent (ASP) Tang Ru Long about the value of the items on the charge sheet, if ASP Tang was the one that identified the value of the items. ASP Tang replied that it was not him that determined the value of the items, they were conveyed to him by the individual complainants. In other words, Liew Mun Leong for the first charge, Karl Liew for the second charge, May Liew for the 3rd charge, and Heather Lim for the 4th charge. No documentation was provided by the Liew family members for the prices that they cited.
The Damaged 'Gerald Genta' Watch, with Broken Strap, Valued at S$25,000
ASP Tang was asked by Defence counsel about how this 'damaged' watch, with a broken strap and missing knob, came to be valued as $25,000. ASP Tang verified that the value was provided by Karl Liew.
In Court, the Prosecutor asked Karl Liew about the value of the Gerald Genta watch. Karl said it was his "impression" that it was $25,000. Karl acknowledged that the strap was broken, and that there was a "fallen button knot". When asked when he had last seen this watch, he said "a long time ago", "a couple of years". The Prosecutor continued to ask Karl how he arrived at the value of S$25,000. Karl then replied that he believed Gerald Genta was "a famous brand", and that his father had told him it was an expensive watch. Karl said his "idea" of an "expensive of watch" is "above 20,000".
There was another watch Karl claimed Parti had stolen, a "Helix" watch he valued at $50.
The Damaged 'Gerald Genta' Watch, with Broken Strap, Valued at S$25,000
ASP Tang was asked by Defence counsel about how this 'damaged' watch, with a broken strap and missing knob, came to be valued as $25,000. ASP Tang verified that the value was provided by Karl Liew.
In Court, the Prosecutor asked Karl Liew about the value of the Gerald Genta watch. Karl said it was his "impression" that it was $25,000. Karl acknowledged that the strap was broken, and that there was a "fallen button knot". When asked when he had last seen this watch, he said "a long time ago", "a couple of years". The Prosecutor continued to ask Karl how he arrived at the value of S$25,000. Karl then replied that he believed Gerald Genta was "a famous brand", and that his father had told him it was an expensive watch. Karl said his "idea" of an "expensive of watch" is "above 20,000".
There was another watch Karl claimed Parti had stolen, a "Helix" watch he valued at $50.
During his examination-in-chief by the Prosecutor, Karl was asked how he arrived at the value of S$50 for this watch. Karl replied that he estimated the price of "a really ugly looking watch" and then divided it by two, to get $50.
Evidence by Expert Witness, Horologist Eric Ong
The Gerald Genta Watch
Defence called on expert witness, horologist Eric Ong (founder of Bonfield), who concluded that the Gerald Genta watch was worth no more than S$500 in its current condition, as extensive repairs were required. In Defence counsel's closing submissions, it was pointed out that this is a marked difference from the value of S$25,000 cited by Karl and listed by ASP Tang without verification.
The Helix Watch
Ong examined the Helix watch Karl valued at $50 and said it was a "door gift": it was a watch that came with a purchase of Shell oil during a promotional period. Ong assessed it to be a "low quality" watch that is "cheap", and said there is "no value in it".
The Vacheron Constantin Watch
Evidence by Expert Witness, Horologist Eric Ong
The Gerald Genta Watch
Defence called on expert witness, horologist Eric Ong (founder of Bonfield), who concluded that the Gerald Genta watch was worth no more than S$500 in its current condition, as extensive repairs were required. In Defence counsel's closing submissions, it was pointed out that this is a marked difference from the value of S$25,000 cited by Karl and listed by ASP Tang without verification.
The Helix Watch
Ong examined the Helix watch Karl valued at $50 and said it was a "door gift": it was a watch that came with a purchase of Shell oil during a promotional period. Ong assessed it to be a "low quality" watch that is "cheap", and said there is "no value in it".
The Vacheron Constantin Watch
Ong also examined the Vacheron Constantin watch (listed on the 3rd charge) and said it is a "knock-off", a "counterfeit" watch. Ong determined that Vacheron Constantin did not make this model and that it was a "low quality" watch. It was also not working. Ong said it was not a "legitimate" product, therefore he was not able to determine the price.
The Swatch Watch
The Swatch Watch
Watch expert Ong examined the Swatch watch and determined that it was also a counterfeit. He was unable to value it because there is "no price" for counterfeits.
In Court, ASP Tang testified that May had told him she had bought it at a Swatch boutique. On the witness stand, May said she could not recall where she bought the watch. In Court, May said she valued the watch at S$75 because she based it on an estimate of how much Swatch watches cost at that point in time.
The Value of Items & Its Impact on Sentencing
On Day 3 of the High Court appeal, Defence counsel Anil Balchandani pointed out that it was problematic to allow complainants to set the value of items, as this means complainants are able to influence sentencing benchmarks.
At the State Courts, the Prosecution had, in fact, sought a sentence of at least three years imprisonment for Parti. In the Prosecution's submissions on sentencing, they had listed as a sentencing factor the multiple items involved as well as the high value of the items.
In Court, ASP Tang testified that May had told him she had bought it at a Swatch boutique. On the witness stand, May said she could not recall where she bought the watch. In Court, May said she valued the watch at S$75 because she based it on an estimate of how much Swatch watches cost at that point in time.
The Value of Items & Its Impact on Sentencing
On Day 3 of the High Court appeal, Defence counsel Anil Balchandani pointed out that it was problematic to allow complainants to set the value of items, as this means complainants are able to influence sentencing benchmarks.
At the State Courts, the Prosecution had, in fact, sought a sentence of at least three years imprisonment for Parti. In the Prosecution's submissions on sentencing, they had listed as a sentencing factor the multiple items involved as well as the high value of the items.