[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: A Singaporean man who allegedly entered into a marriage of convenience with a Georgian woman and a second man accused of instigating the union are on trial over the coupling that was purportedly to help gain a visit pass for the bride.
However, the defence claims that it was a case of “true love”, and that the couple had tried to consummate the marriage but were unable to do so because of the groom’s erectile dysfunction.
Mr Rajwin Singh Sandhu from Rajwin & Yong also argued that the bride loved the groom and helped him overcome his fear of water by bathing him and shaving his armpit and private parts.
Mr Sandhu represents Kok Chiang Loong, a 43-year-old Singaporean man who allegedly helped arrange the sham marriage.
The groom, 45-year-old Singaporean Goh Khoon Beng, is unrepresented.
PROSECUTION’S CASE
According to the prosecution’s closing trial submissions on Wednesday (Oct 18), Goh married 37-year-old Georgian national Akhalkatsi Maia in February 2016 at 15 Kew Terrace.
The prosecution charged that the marriage was one of convenience, where Maia stood to gain an immigration advantage while Goh would be provided free lodging in return, as he did not have a home at the time.
Maia had pleaded guilty to entering into the marriage of convenience and was sentenced to six months’ jail. She then became a prosecution witness against Kok and Goh.
According to the prosecution’s case, Maia contacted Kok when her application for a visa to enter Singapore was rejected in end-2015.
Kok had suggested that she get married and told her this would resolve her visa issue. Kok also said he would introduce a friend to Maia to marry, and Goh messaged her shortly after, she testified.
Maia said Kok claimed that with a marriage visa established, it would be easier for her to enter Singapore.
Subsequently, she was sent a notice of marriage and a social visit visa before entering Singapore in January 2016.
She met up with Kok at his restaurant, where he introduced her to Goh but Maia said she was “repelled” by Goh and left after a while.
She also said she attended a pre-marriage class with Goh on Kok’s instruction and was informed by the staff there that this was Goh’s third marriage.
When Kok told her the marriage was fixed for Jan 23, 2016, Maia said she could not marry Goh as she did not like him. The marriage did not take place on that date, and Kok brought Goh to Maia’s residence and left him there.
When Maia’s visa was close to expiring, she sought Kok’s help to extend her visa and was told that the only way out was for her to marry Goh.
Eventually, she relented and had the marriage ceremony with Goh at Kok’s grandmother’s house in February 2016.
According to Maia, the marriage was not consummated. After they got married, Maia rented a room in her unit for her new “husband” and she paid his rent.
In return, Goh assisted her with all visit pass extensions. According to Maia, Kok did not benefit financially but did ask for referrals of people who wanted to get student passes.
Kok collected about S$6,500 (US$4,700) in total from one of her referrals, Maia claimed.
Goh said in a statement that he had been introduced to Kok through divorcing his second wife. He said Kok asked him for his personal details on multiple occasions and claimed to have seen multiple marriage preparation documents that were from Kok’s purported sideline business of arranging marriages.
According to Goh, he first met Maia in December 2015 at Kok’s Vietnamese restaurant in Marina Square, where Kok told Goh that Goh would marry Maia, who would provide Goh shelter.
When asked if Kok had mentioned anything about having to do pass extensions for Maia, Goh said there was no discussion, and that he was only promised shelter and a wife who would take care of him.
The prosecution said Goh did not consider this marriage as real, and that he had agreed to it mainly for the shelter.
DEFENCE’S CASE
Counsel for Kok, Mr Sandhu, argued that this was a case of “true love” and that the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) had “prejudged” the matter.
Salient to the defence’s case is that the couple attempted to consummate the marriage, but were unsuccessful because of Goh’s erectile dysfunction.
Mr Sandhu argued that the attempt in itself ought to be recognised by the court, that the couple had considered themselves “to have consummated and covenanted to the matrimonial union”.
In fact, Goh had told a defence witness that he enjoyed Maia’s European cuisine and that “sex was good”, said the lawyer.
He said Goh was homeless, hydrophobic or had a phobia of water, and did not shower as a result. He was also unemployed.
“Maia provided intimate care and affection to Goh more than that of a friend,” said Mr Sandhu. “Maia provided care and affection that (is) only shared by those in covenant of matrimony.”
He gave examples, claiming that Maia helped Goh overcome his hydrophobia and bathed him, cooked for him, shaved Goh’s armpit and private parts and bathed together with him.
They also slept with each other and it was only when Goh’s bad habit of using his phone late into the night started interrupting Maia’s sleep that they slept separately.
The defence witnesses confirmed that the pair behaved like a married couple, holding hands and being affectionate, Mr Sandhu said.
He said these factors, even Goh’s bravado tale that sex was good with Maia, were not the elements of a typical sham marriage.
“Maia testified that she tried to make the marriage work but it was too difficult, (so) she decided to divorce him,” said Mr Sandhu. The pair are currently divorced.
He urged the court to put little weight on Maia’s plea of guilt, saying she had withdrawn her initial position to claim trial in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and that “accused persons plead guilty for many different reasons”.
Mr Sandhu urged the court not to convict Kok, saying any “reasonable man on the street” would have agreed they were indeed husband and wife but for “the interference from the ICA”.
“Where there is love, there can be no sham marriage. The defence rests its case,” he concluded.
The judge will give his verdict next month.
If convicted of entering into a marriage of convenience under the Immigration Act, Goh can be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$10,000, or both.
Kok faces the same penalties if convicted of instigating Goh into entering into a marriage of convenience.
[ad_2]
Source link