Indian-origin woman jailed in Singapore for cheating

Singapore: An Indian-origin woman in Singapore has been sentenced to 16 months in jail, with the judge noting that her attempt to cheat the government would have been at expense of taxpayers’ money meant for the COVID-19 Support Grant, according to a media report.

Rajagopal Malini, 48, committed the offences between July and September last year including a forged termination letter from the condominium she worked at in an attempt to claim money from the COVID-19 Support Grant.

Rajagopal also took cash given to her by residents for their maintenance fees of more than 4,000 Singapore dollars, and used a stolen credit card on a 13,500 Singapore dollars shopping spree with her children and their friends in September last year to “shower her children with love”, The Straits Times reported. While sentencing Malini on Friday, District Judge Marvin Bay noted that her attempt to cheat the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) would have been at the expense of taxpayers’ money.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Stacey Fernandez told the court that Rajagopal’s forged letter, dated August 1, 2020, bore the Euphony Gardens condominium letterhead as she had access to the letterhead on her office computer, which she used to write notices and correspondences with the condo’s residents.

Her forgery was discovered when the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) called the condominium manager and he informed them that the contents of the termination letter, dated August 1, 2020, were false.

The condominium manager also made a police report in October saying that Rajagopal had pocketed cash she was tasked to collect from residents for the condominium’s Management Corporation Strata Title fees for maintenance.

She was the only adult in the group of children on a shopping spree buying mobile phones, watches and shoes, among other things.

Rajagopal’s lawyer Bozy Lu said her client went on the illicit shopping spree because she wanted to “shower her children with love”.

The court heard that her family was not well off and she wanted to buy things for herself and her family.