Written by admin | February 12, 2018
FEB 12, 2018, 7:21 PM SGT
SINGAPORE – A business owner of several tuition agencies made fraudulent Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) claims of more than $100,000 for entities under his control, and helped five others cheat the Government of similar cash payouts.
On Monday (Feb 12), Xu Feng Jia, 33, was sentenced to four months and 12 weeks’ jail and ordered to pay a penalty of $257,436 after he had admitted to four of nine charges of submitting false information to obtain PIC cash payouts involving some $70,130.
The PIC scheme was introduced in Budget 2010 to encourage businesses in Singapore to invest in productivity and innovation.
As both the prosecution and defence are appealing, Xu’s sentence was stayed. Bail of $50,000, pending appeal, was granted.
Xu is also appealing a conviction for committing a rash act to endanger the personal safety of Sergeant Muhammad Fathi Talhah. Xu was accused of driving off in his Lamborghini suddenly, and at high speed, while the officer was standing close to the car and holding on to its door.
This happened outside Yishun North Neighbourhood Police Centre at about 1.15am on March 15, 2015.
He was given six weeks’ jail and banned from driving for 12 months by District Judge Eugene Teo, who ordered the two sets of sentences to run consecutively.
The court heard that between September and December 2012, Xu orchestrated the submission of nine fraudulent PIC claims to Inland Revenue Authority Of Singapore (Iras).
Four of these claims were made by entities directly under his control, which included Edward Home Tuition Agency, Edward Education Consultancy, A Tick For That! Education School and Friends! Learning Centre.
He had misrepresented to Iras that these entities were entitled to make PIC claims by stating that they had three local employees when they were in fact volunteer tutors. He also claimed that these entities had made qualifying PIC expenditures when the expenses were either fake or personal expenses made by volunteer or part-time tutors.
The five remaining fraudulent PIC claims were made by entities to whom Xu had sold his tuition-matching software titled “iManage”. He assured them that they would be able to get reimbursement from the Government for the purchase of the software by way of a PIC cash payout.
He helped the five sole proprietors, aged between 29 and 70, by providing them with particulars of individuals unrelated to the businesses to be listed as their local employees on their PIC forms.
The five were each given the maximum $5,000 fine and ordered to pay two times the amount of the cash payouts in end-2016.
This case has been reported as Public Prosecutor v Xu Feng Jia  SGMC 42
High Court says objecting creditors failed to prove that application was made in bad faith K.C. Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent…Read More
JUL 19, 2017, 2:08 PM SGT Elena Chong Court Correspondent SINGAPORE - A police officer used his own account or…Read More
SINGAPORE — Two foreigners were charged in court on Monday (Sept 4) with cheating a shipping firm of S$1.5 million…Read More
Straits Times, 21 December 2017 By Jose Hong SINGAPORE - Can online shopping platform ezbuy take legal action against Alibaba Group,…Read More
Straits Times, NOV 26, 2017 by Jose Hong SINGAPORE - Ms April Cho wanted a new shot at life after 14…Read More
JUN 26, 2018, 8:45 PM SGT Adrian Lim Transport Correspondent SINGAPORE - With bicycle-sharing operator oBike now in liquidation in…Read More
SINGAPORE - The wheels may have come off for bicycle-sharing operator oBike, which has shut down its operations here. However…Read More
It adds that bike-sharing firm must have concrete plan to refund customers their deposits Straits Times Zhaki Abdullah and Sue-Ann…Read More
Straits Times, 19 July 2018 By Zhaki Abdullah Bike-sharing firm oBike's two-wheelers continue to be cleared from the streets here,…Read More
15th April 2019 By: Cara Wong But relief may not be long-lasting, court orders can be contested. Fake news has…Read More
The relationship between the employer and employee is not just regulated by the contract of employment between them. The Employment…Read More