SINGAPORE: A man took sex videos of two of his then-girlfriends without their consent, and installed a motion-sensing camera in his toilet to capture his female colleagues after inviting them to his house.
When his girlfriend discovered incriminating videos of herself and her friends on his phone and confronted him, the man told her that “voyeurism among liberal couples is normal”.
He also denied wrongdoing and blamed her for going through his phone.
The 32-year-old Malaysian man pleaded guilty to five counts of voyeurism, with other charges to be taken into consideration, on Friday (Feb 23).
The gag order was extended to his identity just before the plea was taken, because one of the victims was worried about being identified via his name.
The court heard that the man preyed on five victims who were his girlfriends or his current or former colleagues at two well-known consulting firms.
The offender was in a relationship with the fourth victim, known as V4, since May 2021.
Around October 2021, she became suspicious as the offender always held his handphone while they were having sex.
In late 2021, while the man was sleeping, V4 went through her boyfriend’s phone and found intimate photos of herself and three videos of herself having sex with her boyfriend.
She also saw sex videos of local influencers, which had been leaked online, along with voyeuristic photos and videos of her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend.
V4 then opened an application on her boyfriend’s phone and found at least four voyeuristic videos of two of her friends.
She took a screenshot of the album, depicting the thumbnails, and used her own phone to record some of the voyeuristic videos of herself and other victims.
Investigations revealed that the man had bought a motion-sensing camera online before October 2021.
Because of its size, the camera was easy to hide. It was controlled using the mobile application he had installed – which CNA will not name to prevent further abuse – and was connected to WiFi.
He invited two victims – aged 29 and 30 – to his home for brunch. They were his former colleagues and his girlfriend’s friends.
Before they arrived, the man placed the camera in a laundry basket in his toilet. He captured them using the toilet – including their faces.
The man also similarly recorded a voyeuristic video of an ex-colleague while she was at his home with a man for a housewarming dinner.
The offender also took videos and photos of a girlfriend he had before V4 and uploaded footage to an online forum.
When V4 discovered the videos, she felt rattled and traumatised, the court heard.
She shared with her friends – who were also victims – about what happened and showed them the videos.
One of the friends lodged a police report only after careful deliberation in March 2022, as she was concerned about V4, who was affected by the offences.
When V4 confronted the offender, he told her that “voyeurism among liberal couples is normal” and “it’s just a fetish”.
He denied any wrongdoing because he had not distributed the content, and blamed V4 for going through his videos.
He then retrieved the footage from the camera and deleted them in V4’s presence before throwing away the device.
ARGUMENTS
Deputy Public Prosecutor Zhou Yang urged the court to place little weight on a report prepared by a defence psychiatrist.
He said the diagnosis by the psychiatrist of adjustment disorder is “problematic” as it is not “an accurate reflection of what actually conspired”.
Defence lawyer Megan Chia from Tan Rajah & Cheah said she was not relying on the report for any causal connection between the offences and her client’s mental state, but just to show the context of his life at that point in time.
Mr Zhou said the defence wrote in their mitigation plea that the offender was “extremely remorseful” when confronted and deleted the application from his phone.
However, he said the deleting and discarding of the camera came about only after V4 discovered the voyeuristic videos.
Mr Zhou said the act of deletion may even be aggravating depending on his motive, but stopped short of saying it was to hinder investigations.
Ms Chia said when V4 discovered the recordings, she had “a conversation about it” with the offender.
Beyond the bit where the offender said it was a “normal” fetish, V4 continued to be in a relationship with the offender to the following year in January, said Ms Chia.
“The reason why he had deleted the videos and thrown away the devices is because he recognised the shame, and the remorse, and the aberrance of his behaviour,” said the lawyer.
She added that there were no other voyeuristic videos after the confrontation, which shows that the offender “registered that what he had done wasn’t correct” and started to change his behaviour.
She also said that her client did not purchase the motion-sensing camera to use it for the brunch.
Instead, “he had put the camera in as a matter of mischief that occurred in the context of him being curious about the features of the camera”.
The lawyer also argued at length about the “consensual” nature of the man’s relationships with his then-girlfriends, describing one of them as an “openly adventurous sexual relationship”.
The judge said she needed time to consider submissions and adjourned sentencing to March.