Search the Community

I think all road-savvy and up-to-date drivers have heard of the phenomenon known as "accident touters". For those who are not familiar with this term, they are basically people who cause car accidents or wait for car accidents to occur, before rushing forward to offer their workshop services. Shake my head. Recently, such an incident was sighted on the PIE. Watch the video here: Wow, such kind-hearted people. Or is it too good to be true? In the video, we spotted several people quickly approaching after the accident occurred, with one man even trying to CROSS the busy lanes to get to the cars on the other side. Something smells fishy! What do we think? It seems all too suspicious. The waiting cars, the quick-to-approach men... Something isn't right. We concluded, this must be a case of accident touting. Netizens have their say This comment says it all. We have the full picture here and it isn't pretty. People will go to such lengths just to earn money. Another netizen agreed with the comment above. Thank god for car cams and our existing highway cameras. Meanwhile, another two were discussing how to avoid situations similar to this: One commentator weighed in with very good advice to stick to. More helpful advice here. Lastly, one netizen reminded us to give benefit of doubt... Yes, that could be true. Sadly, the world is not as kind and innocent as we used to think it to be... Be on your guard We hope the unfortunate driver caught up in this concocted scenario understood what the touters were trying to do, and did not engage them for his services. Please don't drag other people down with you just for your personal gain. It is a nasty thing to do. Beware of these accident touts! ========= Be the first to get the latest road/ COE news, and get first dibs on exclusive promos and giveaways in our Telegram SGCM Community. Join us today!

http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/...ory_183335.html Three lawyers suspended for touting after sting operation They were found guilty of offering incentives to a 'housing agent' for property deals' referrals By Selina Lum THREE lawyers who offered incentives to a 'housing agent' for referring property deals to them were suspended from practice for between nine and 15 months on Tuesday. In handing down the penalties to Mrs Phyllis Fong, Ms Lilian Bay and Mr James Liew, the Court of Three Judges - the highest body that decides on disciplinary cases against lawyers - roundly rejected their arguments of entrapment. They were each found guilty by separate disciplinary committees of touting for conveyancing work. Such touting, which involves paying a fee to a real estate agent for referring a client, amounts to misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. The bulk of the evidence against them was obtained by the same part-time private investigator by the name of Jenny Lee. Ms Lee was hired by a PI agency, which in turn was instructed by a group of unidentified lawyers, to carry out a sting operation against fellow law firms, for motives still unclear. Posing as a real estate agent, Ms Lee went to different law firms to obtain evidence that lawyers there were promising rewards for referring legal work to them. Several lawyers were caught in the act - their meetings were secretly recorded by Ms Lee, who then complained to the Law Society. The first lawyer brought before the court was Mr Dave Tan, who pleaded guilty and was suspended for six months last November. Other lawyers, including Mrs Fong, Mr Liew and Ms Bay, fought back. Represented by different counsel, they mounted various arguments. The common defence was that the evidence obtained by Ms Lee should not have been admitted against them. They argued that this was because such evidence was obtained by way of entrapment, which amounted to an abuse of the disciplinary process. They also argued that the identity of the lawyers who had hired the PI should be disclosed. However, these arguments were rejected by by the court, headed by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, which issued three separate judgments totalling 144 pages. The Court held that entrapment evidence is admissible under Singapore law, whether done by law enforcement officers or by lawyers for the purpose of bringing disciplinary proceedings against errant lawyers. The court also ruled that the entrapment evidence could not be described as an abuse of process if the prosecution was commenced for the purpose of ascertaining whether an accused person was guilty of the offences for which he or she was charged. In Mrs Fong's case, the lawyer of 29 years' standing had offered a $200 shopping voucher to private investigator Jenny Lee in return for bringing her business. Ms Lee had posed as an estate agent and had offered her a conveyancing deal involving a house in Lengkok Mariam. She also recorded their conversation and secretly videotaped their meeting in March 2004. The deal was subsequently aborted, but Ms Lee followed up with a complaint. In its judgment in Phyllis Tan's case, the Court held that entrapment evidence is admissible under Singapore law. Excluding it would be inconsistent with the terms of the Evidence Act, it ruled.