SINGAPORE: A man tasked to repair a customer’s phone scrolled through the latter’s Telegram chat application until he found intimate images from the customer’s fiancee.
He then forwarded the images to himself, but the customer noticed the new chat window while using the application and confronted him.
Loo Lung Tat was jailed for three months and six weeks on Tuesday (Aug 29). He pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing intimate images without consent and another of obstructing justice by deleting the chat and uninstalling the Telegram application. A third charge was taken into consideration.
The court heard that Loo, who just turned 26 on Tuesday, was working as a mobile technician at Hi Tech Mobile at Bugis Junction.
On Jan 10, 2021, a 30-year-old man accidentally dropped his phone and wanted to repair the screen. He handed his phone to his fiancee, who went to the shop in Bugis Junction the next day.
She handed the phone to a shop assistant, along with the password.
Loo was tasked with repairing the phone, and he replaced the screen that same day. After doing so, he decided to test it to make sure the LCD screen was working.
Even after confirming that the phone was in working condition, Loo did not stop using it. He opened the Telegram application, despite knowing that he was not authorised to access the data of any customer’s phone.
The first Telegram chat window was between the customer and his fiancee. He scrolled through the media gallery of the chat until he found nude and intimate images and videos of the customer’s fiancee.
Loo selected about 40 of these images, intending to forward them to himself. However, he realised he could not do so as the customer did not have his contact.
After saving his number on the customer’s phone, he forwarded the images to himself. At least three of them were nude images of the fiancee.
Loo later claimed that he had forwarded the images as he was “stressed at work” and upset, as he had broken up with his own girlfriend in November 2020.
At about 6pm, the customer was using his Telegram application when he suddenly noticed a new chat window with a person named “Jacky”.
He did not know such a person and was shocked to see that multiple images of his fiancee had been sent to Jacky in the chat.
The customer immediately typed in the chat, asking Jacky who he was, but received no reply. He also tried to call Jacky, but his call was declined.
At this point, Loo knew that he had been caught in the act and was “scared and nervous”, said the prosecutor.
Loo deleted the chat with the customer and uninstalled the Telegram application on his own phone, as he was afraid of being confronted and scared that the customer would call the police.
He also hoped that the customer would not call the police after realising that the photos were gone. The customer called the police shortly after and Loo was arrested on the same day.
The prosecutor asked for seven to nine months’ jail, saying that Loo had taken advantage of the trust the customer gave him to “satisfy his own lust”.
“He not only violated his customer’s privacy by viewing the customer’s intimate communications and photos with his fiancee but went one step further to send these intimate photos to his own account, for his own viewing pleasure later,” said the prosecutor.
When the customer caught him in the act, Loo not only refused to admit his wrongdoing but took steps to remove the evidence and prevent the police from being involved, he added.
The prosecutor said there were no reported cases under this particular section for possession of or gaining access to voyeuristic or intimate images or recordings.
He referred instead to guidelines for a similar offence of distributing voyeuristic or intimate images or recordings.
The customer’s fiancee was “entirely identifiable” in the images, with her name and photos included, he said.
“Having committed the offence and having tried to avoid facing the consequences, the accused must now serve his time,” said the prosecutor.
For knowingly possessing intimate images by sending the illegally obtained images to himself, Loo could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.
For obstructing the course of justice, he could have been jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.