Covid-19: Man serving stay-home notice found with family and 9 house movers, fined S$7,000

• Ko Kyung Ho had returned to Singapore from South Korea to visit his family on Nov 25, 2020
• He lied in his declaration form that he would be serving his stay-home notice at his declared place of residence alone
• Instead, he was found with his wife, two children and nine movers by enforcement officers the next day

SINGAPORE — A 46-year-old Singapore permanent resident returning from South Korea was fined S$7,000 for lying to immigration officers that he would be serving his stay-home notice alone. 

Instead, he was found with his family members, along with nine house movers, during an inspection by enforcement officers the next afternoon.

On Tuesday (June 29), Ko Kyung Ho pleaded guilty to one charge of providing false information under the Infectious Diseases Act.  

A single charge of allowing the movers into his house while he was serving his stay-home notice was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Joshua Lim told the court that Ko was working in South Korea at the time of the offence and would visit his family in Singapore several times a year as his two teenage children are studying here.

On Nov 25 last year, Ko landed in Singapore in the evening at Changi Airport Terminal 3 and was informed that he would have to serve a stay-home notice either at a dedicated facility or within his declared place of residence as part of the country's measures to stem the spread of Covid-19.  

Ko chose to serve his notice at home and was told by an immigration officer that he could only do so under specific conditions, which were also spelled out in a declaration form that Ko acknowledged.

The conditions were that Ko would be allowed to serve his notice at his declared place of residence only if he was staying alone or with household members who had the same travel history as him and were also serving their notice for the same period.

As part of the conditions, Ko should have already made all the necessary arrangements to ensure that he was not residing with anyone who did not share the same travel history as him. 

If he failed to abide by these conditions, he was informed that he would be prosecuted for offences under the Infectious Diseases Act. 

Investigations found that Ko and his wife had decided to engage the services of a house-moving company in late October to shift their belongings from their old place of residence to the address Ko had declared in the form. The move was to happen on the morning of Nov 26.    

However, DPP Lim said that Ko had neither mentioned to the immigration officer that his wife and children would be moving in with him the following day nor sought permission for the movers to carry on with their work. 

DPP Lim added that Ko understood English and had studied the language at Stanford University in the United States.

After clearing immigration, Ko was received by his wife and son at the airport and the pair travelled separately from him after leaving the airport.

Ko’s wife went back to their old home and their son stayed overnight with him.

Enforcement officers who were assigned to carry out house visits on persons serving their stay-home notices discovered Ko’s offence on the afternoon of Nov 26.

When they arrived, they found Ko with his family in the living room, along with the house movers carrying furniture and other household items into the residence. 

The movers were unaware that Ko was serving his stay-home notice and they were told to stop work by the officers. 

Ko was later transferred to the Intercontinental Hotel to serve the rest of his stay-home notice, DPP Lim said as he sought a maximum fine of S$10,000.

The prosecutor noted that Ko’s case was one of low harm and low culpability because he had gone straight home after returning to Singapore and limited his interactions to his family.

In pleading for a lighter sentence for his client, defence lawyer Adrian Wee who sought the S$7,000 fine said that Ko had previously served his stay-home notice with his family, which formed the basis for his desire to do so again. 

“But as it turns out, and this he fully accepts, the rules had changed by the time he returned to Singapore in November.”

Mr Wee also said that his client had not sought to deceive anyone and “was not blind to the transmission of the disease”. 

He said that Ko had not left his place of residence to go out after arriving in Singapore and he had even spoken to the enforcement officers behind the sliding doors of his balcony.

For his offence, Ko could have been punished with a fine of up to S$10,000 or jailed up to six months, or both.