SINGAPORE: A woman from China who entered into a sham marriage with a Singaporean man in order to extend her stay in Singapore was sentenced to six months’ jail on Monday (Aug 21).
Cao Rongrong, a 30-year-old Chinese national, pleaded guilty to one count under the Immigration Act of entering into a marriage of convenience in order to obtain an immigration advantage in the form of a visit pass.
Another three charges of making false statements in relation to applying for a visit pass were taken into consideration.
The court heard that Cao married Singaporean Chen Weiyu, now 37, at the Thai Village Restaurant at the Singapore Indoor Stadium on Jul 9, 2022.
Chen received S$6,000 (US$4,416) as a reward for entering into the marriage.
However, the pair did not consummate the marriage, and Cao had a boyfriend at the time.
After the “wedding”, Cao managed to obtain two visit pass extensions for herself by lying in her applications.
The prosecutor asked for at least six months’ jail, saying the offence was difficult to detect, due to the personal nature of marriages.
Such offences erode the sanctity of marriage, he added.
MITIGATION
Defence lawyer Xavier Lim from Yeo & Associates said the jail term could be adjusted downward.
He said his client suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, adding Cao had “a troubled childhood” and past.
At the time of the offences, she had been cheated by her business partner, he said.
Mr Lim added that his client had “other businesses in Singapore” and could easily have applied for a work permit under her many businesses.
However, she “failed to consider this point” as she was acting “illogically at the time” due to her mental illnesses, he said.
Mr Lim added that the co-accused, Chen, exploited her desperation and naivete for his own monetary gain.
“The fact of the matter is that (the) parties didn’t even talk about Chen Weiyu’s remuneration until after the marriage was solemnised,” he said.
He added that Cao wanted to annul the marriage shortly after the solemnisation, but was arrested within about three months before she could do so.
In response, the prosecutor said Cao had committed the offences “purely for economic reasons”.
If Cao claims that she has been susceptible to manipulation “all her life”, then “she shouldn’t have trusted her business partner and invested her family’s life savings into a foreign country”, said the prosecutor.
Cao had not said she was suffering from any mental illness during her statement recording, he added.
He pointed to the woman’s psychiatric report, which found that she was “not of unsound mind” at the time of the offences.
“In fact, she actively planned the wedding ceremony,” he said.
The judge said the offence of entering into a sham marriage to circumvent immigration polices is “a serious matter”.
He agreed with the prosecution that such offences are difficult to detect as they are by nature, private matters. He found the mitigating arguments not sufficient to reduce her sentence and imposed the jail term sought by the prosecution.
Cao tried to ask for permission to speak to the judge after the sentence was passed, but she was denied.
For entering into a marriage of convenience to obtain an immigration advantage, and where gratification was given, she could have been jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$10,000, or both.