POCKETED RESTITUTION MONEY, CASE EXHIBIT
According to court documents, Danial has been a police officer since April 2009.
At the time of the offences, he was a senior investigation officer holding the rank of senior staff sergeant.
Part of his duties as an investigation officer included facilitating the handover of money from offenders as restitution to victims.
Whenever he did so, he was required to file a police acknowledgement slip to indicate that he had handed over the money.
However, on multiple occasions between July 2017 and October 2020, when his offences were uncovered, Danial instead kept the restitution money for himself and forged acknowledgement slips to indicate that he had handed over the money to the victims.
Of the roughly S$90,500 he pocketed, he returned a total of S$7,600.
For example, in January 2018, Danial handled a cheating case involving a 43-year-old man, who was the defendant.
The man met Danial at Bedok Police Division Headquarters on Jan 9 to hand over S$15,943.16 in cash that was meant to be a repayment to his company.
Instead, Danial used the money to “place bets on soccer betting and on personal expenses”, according to Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Emily Koh.
Danial then forged a police acknowledgement slip to show he had handed over the cash to a 52-year-old woman, who was the complainant in the case, signing the slip in her stead.
No restitution has been made for this case.
In May 2019, Danial conducted a raid on the residence of a 42-year-old woman, who was the defendant of a criminal breach of trust case.
He found S$5,954.10 in the home and seized it as an exhibit related to the case. Instead of reporting the seizure of money, Danial used it to place bets on soccer matches and on personal expenses.
TOOK LOANS FROM COLLEAGUES, MONEYLENDERS
Danial’s offences began to unravel when on Oct 15, 2020, the head of investigation at Bedok Police Station received his annual credit bureau screening and found that he had a significant amount of unsecured debt — close to three months of his monthly salary.
It was later established that Danial had taken personal loans from licensed moneylenders.
The head of investigation then instructed two other officers to conduct checks on Danial’s workstation and cabinets. At this time, Danial was on leave.
The checks uncovered copies of police acknowledgement slips for money Danial had received from individuals linked to cases he handled. When confronted, he admitted to misappropriating the money.
“Investigations revealed that the accused had taken loans from several colleagues as well as legal moneylenders. The accused took these loans for soccer betting with the Singapore Pools and other expenses,” said the prosecutor.
The money meant for victims that Danial misappropriated was channelled to pay off some of his debt or for his gambling habits.
Seeking a jail term of between 52 months and 55 months, DPP Koh in her submissions described Danial’s offences as an “egregious abuse of trust” by a law enforcement officer.
She said his acts constituted dishonour and betrayal of the police organisation “to the highest degree”.
“Not only did he commit an offence in the course of duty, but he also committed the very offence for which he was responsible to prevent,” she argued.
His offences also remained undetected for a prolonged period of more than three years, with his forgery offences making it harder for his crimes to be uncovered.
Addressing Danial on Tuesday during sentencing, District Judge Crystal Tan said that he had committed a “fundamental breach” of his duty by dishonestly misappropriating the money.
She said that the court must consider not only the financial harm caused to the victims arising from Danial’s actions but also the fact that the investigation and handling of the cases may have been affected.
His offences also “incur reputational harm to the Singapore Police Force and its officers” and adversely affect the public’s confidence in law enforcement, she said.
For each count of criminal breach of trust as a public servant, Danial could have been jailed for up to 20 years and fined.
For each count of forgery, he could have been jailed for up to four years, be handed a fine, or both.
The article was originally published in TODAY.
