NUR DIYANAH BINTE MOHAMED RAMDAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 174 consider?

The judgment refers to Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Cap 187), Customs Act, Payment Services Act, and Penal Code (Cap 224), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC 174 High Court (General Division) 27 August 2026 HC/MA 9028/2026/01 20 min read

10 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	27 August 2026
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Public Defender's Office, Hon Yi, Lim Tze Han Daryl, Lum Guo Rong, Vanessa Tan Xin Hui

Source: [2026] SGHC 174, High Court (General Division), decided 27 August 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Appeal against sentence Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Section 5 Payment Services Act 2019 (2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (6)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Public Defender's Office Firm Hon Yi Counsel for the respondent

Lim Tze Han Daryl Counsel for the appellant

Lum Guo Rong Counsel for the appellant

Vanessa Tan Xin Hui Counsel for the respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent

Nur Diyanah bte Mohamed Ramdan Appellant

Case Significance

Nur Diyanah bte Mohamed Ramdan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGHC 174 is a decision of See Kee Oon JAD in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 27 August 2026 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9028 of 2026. The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge under s 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019 after performing 48 transactions involving $159,731.90 on the instructions of a person known as Larry, of which at least $43,196 was traceable to scam proceeds. The District Judge sentenced her to seven months and three weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $1000.00. The issues were whether the sentence was erroneous in principle and manifestly excessive. The court held that reliance on Ederlina was misplaced and the sentence manifestly excessive, applying the Vijay Kumar framework with an indicative sentence of 21 weeks' imprisonment and reducing the term to 15 weeks' imprisonment.

[2026] SGHC 174 explained

NUR DIYANAH BINTE MOHAMED RAMDAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGHC 174) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 27 August 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGHC 174 about?

NUR DIYANAH BINTE MOHAMED RAMDAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGHC 174) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Appeal against sentence” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Section 5 Payment Services Act 2019 (2020 Rev Ed)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 174 consider?

The judgment refers to Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Cap 187), Customs Act, Payment Services Act, and Penal Code (Cap 224), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

The General Division of the High Court heard an appeal by Nur Diyanah bte Mohamed Ramdan against a sentence of seven months and three weeks' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for an offence under s 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019, committed by moving $159,731.90 through her bank accounts across 48 transactions. The court held that the District Judge erred in relying on Ederlina and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. It reduced the imprisonment term to 15 weeks and left the fine undisturbed.

What sentence did the High Court impose in [2026] SGHC 174?

See Kee Oon JAD reduced the appellant's sentence from seven months and three weeks' imprisonment to 15 weeks' imprisonment. The $1,000 fine imposed by the District Judge was not disturbed, as it had not been appealed and had already been paid.

Why was the sentence reduced in Nur Diyanah bte Mohamed Ramdan v Public Prosecutor ([2026] SGHC 174)?

The court held the District Judge wrongly relied on Ederlina, a Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act precedent, and that an 11-month starting point was too large an uplift from the three-week starting point in Vijay Kumar.