Man who recruited Singaporeans to bail out foreigners loses appeal against 6 weeks’ jail

A 43-year-old man who ran a scheme in which Singaporeans were recruited to post bail for foreigners facing criminal charges has failed in his appeal to the High Court against his sentence of six weeks’ jail.

Under his scheme, the bailors did not have to bear the financial risk in the event that bail was forfeited if the accused persons absconded.

The case is the first to be prosecuted in court since the criminalisation of bail indemnity arrangements came into effect on Oct 31, 2018.

Katchu Mohideen Bazeer Ahamed admitted that he had entered into agreements with another person to indemnify that person for any liability that he might incur for standing as a bailor.

Bazeer, who pleaded guilty before a district judge in 2024, admitted that he worked for a lawyer – identified in court documents as Mr Revi Shanker – who asked him to scout for bailors for his foreign clients.

He also admitted that he recruited a friend, Mohamed Afzal Latiff Abdul Kader, to help him find bailors.

A check by The Straits Times showed that Afzal’s case is pending in the State Courts. No information was immediately available regarding Mr Revi.

Bazeer’s appeal was dismissed by Justice Tay Yong Kwang on May 9.

The judge issued written grounds of decision on Sept 26, after Bazeer filed an application to take his case further to the Court of Appeal.

In his written grounds, Justice Tay rejected Bazeer’s arguments challenging the constitutionality of the provision under the Criminal Procedure Code that criminalised such arrangements.

The judge noted that bail represents the compromise between the two goals of a person’s right to liberty before conviction and of securing a person’s attendance in court.

The bailor has a duty to ensure that the accused person turns up in court, he said.

“A bailor would be incentivised to fulfil his obligations when his own assets or money are at risk of forfeiture. A bailor who is indemnified against all financial loss would have no incentive to perform his duties,” said Justice Tay.

According to Bazeer, in 2017, Mr Revi, who was his good friend, asked if he wanted to earn extra income by scouting for bailors for his foreign clients.

These clients are often the relatives of the accused persons held in remand.

Bazeer would negotiate the rate with the client and charge a fee of about $1,000, which would be split between him and the bailor.

He said he was also paid $300 to $500 per month by Mr Revi, depending on the number of bailors he found.

In 2018, Bazeer recruited Afzal to help him look for bailors.

The information of the accused persons would be forwarded to the bailors for them to memorise so that they could give a convincing account to the court.

If an accused person jumped bail, the bailors did not have to make any payment.

Bail in the form of cash came from the clients, while Bazeer and Afzal would bear the payment for bail in the form of personal belongings pledged as security.

In cases involving cash bail, the bailors would be told to expect the bail amount to be credited to their bank account when the case concludes.

The bailors were entitled to a cut of $1,000 to $3,000, and the remaining sums would be returned to the clients.

Whenever the bailors took more than the agreed sum, Bazeer had to chase them for the return of the money.

Bailors who fled after they received the funds were blacklisted.

The arrangement carried on from the end of 2017 until Bazeer’s arrest on Jan 7, 2020.

He faced three charges for instructing the same person to help bail out three foreign nationals between March and November 2019. The bail amounts ranged from $5,000 to $10,000.

He pleaded guilty to one charge, with the other two charges taken into consideration during sentencing.

Bazeer then sought to postpone his appeal hearing several times, and also changed his lawyer.

He initially asked for his sentence to be reduced by three to four weeks’ jail, but later decided to raise a constitutional challenge and argued for a fine.

Represented by Mr K.R. Manickavasagam, he contended that it was absurd and discriminatory that an accused person could “bail himself out” on a personal bond but would be deemed to commit an offence if he provided funds to a bailor to bail him out.

The prosecution said the constitutional challenge was unmeritorious.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Katchu Mohideen Bazeer Ahamed v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 192

ADV: JLP - Discovery & Document Management (Disputes) Woman fails to make rich ex-husband pay over $30k monthly in child support