Johor Bahru buy Heroin

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Johor Bahru buy Heroin

This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. He arrived and then loitered in the vicinity of Blocks 74, 75 and 81 Whampoa Drive. There, the Accused was seen removing a big red plastic bag containing a heavy item from the boot of the car. The Accused carried the red plastic bag over his shoulder and made his way towards the linkway connecting Block 32 New Market Road to Block 33 Park Crescent. He was arrested by CNB officers at the linkway. The red plastic bag was seized by the officers. The Tyre was opened and the CNB officers found 21 bundles of granular substances wrapped in black tape, as well as other paraphernalia related to drug abuse hidden inside the Tyre. This was not challenged by the Defence. The CNB officers raided the apartment unit and found substances that were subsequently ascertained by Dr Yap to be The DPP stated from the Bar, to be a fake watch. In my view, it was not significant whether it was a genuine watch or not. The only issue was whether or not the Accused knew that the Tyre contained Heroin. Section 18 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that any person who is proved to have had controlled drugs in his possession will be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have known the nature of that drug. With that presumption, the onus was on the Accused to prove on a balance of probabilities that he did not know he was transporting heroin. In his examination-in-chief, he said that on 3 February , one Gino had told him that Makcik needed a car to travel to Johor Bahru. As Gino had previously repaired his car when Makcik had borrowed it to travel to Malaysia, and the speakers of the car needed to be repaired, he agreed to lend Makcik his car again. On 4 February , he sent Gino a text message to enquire about when his car would be returned. He was told that Makcik was already on the way to Singapore. Subsequently, he went to Whampoa to get his car. After retrieving his car from Makcik and Pakcik who had also gone to Malaysia , he called Gino to thank him for a birthday present viz , the Omega watch. He claimed that when he arrived at New Market Road, he went to buy a big red plastic bag to carry the Tyre as he did not want to dirty his hands and shirt. After buying the plastic bag and placing the Tyre in the plastic bag, he proceeded to the linkway connecting Block 32 New Market Road and Block 33 Park Crescent where he was subsequently arrested. His version of the events was not credible. In a statement to the CNB dated 7 February , the Accused disclosed that he knew that Gino dealt in heroin and that he had bought Heroin from Gino in the past to consume and to sell paras 5—7. The Accused also stated that Mangila had told him that he ie , Mangila wanted to deal in Heroin and asked him ie , the Accused about Gino id at paras 8—9. In response, the Accused had told Mangila that he would contact Gino for him ie , Mangila to arrange a supply of Heroin id at para 9. All of this was not denied at trial. In a statement to the CNB dated 8 February , the Accused claimed that Mangila told him on the evening of 3 February that he was not ready to deal with Gino at paras 21—22 , but I do not think that this detracted from the evidence that the only common interest between the three of them ie , Gino, Mangila and the Accused related to Heroin. As the Accused had admitted when cross-examined, Makcik and Pakcik were not well known or familiar to him. The explanation given by the Accused for his loaning of his car to Makcik and Pakcik comes across as very dubious, and, indeed, in my view, untrue. His motivation, in essence, was that Makcik and Pakcik would take the car to Malaysia for him where it would be modified for free by Gino. He elaborated at trial that he would send his car to Gino as Gino had always been involved in repairing cars. This inconsistency further indicated to me that the Accused was not telling the truth. Parenthetically, I would add that there is no evidence that Makcik and Pakcik were involved in drug trafficking and the Defence did not attempt to suggest otherwise. Makcik and Pakcik, it appears, had been put in touch with Gino by their son when they asked their son to assist in finding some means of transporting fishes to Malaysia for their fish business. Gino subsequently recommended the Accused, who loaned them his car on several occasions. In fact, I am satisfied that the Accused was aware that the 21 bundles of granular substances in the Tyre contained Heroin. On his own testimony, on the morning of 4 February , he had taken a taxi to Whampoa Drive and had waited nearly two hours for his car to arrive. The explanation he gave, that his office was located in front of his premises and he had nothing much to do, can on no accounts be described as credible. Indeed, it is very plausible that the Accused had connived with Gino to systematically traffick Heroin into Singapore by hiding it in the tyre of motor vehicles driven by Makcik and Pakcik. When cross-examined, the Accused said that the reference to a spare tyre on 31 December was a reference to a spare tyre from a rental car driven by Makcik and Pakcik to Malaysia on that day and the reference to a spare tyre on 7 December was a reference to a spare tyre from his car which was driven by Makcik and Pakcik to Malaysia on that day. All this is unlikely to have been a coincidence. Just after the arrest took place, the Accused had also been shown one of the 21 bundles of granular substances found in the Tyre and was questioned as to its contents. In a statement to the CNB dated 9 February , the Accused said that he replied that he had no knowledge of the contents as he was scared and shocked, but at that point in time, he knew that the bundle contained Heroin as he had trafficked and consumed Heroin previously at paras 32— I therefore convict the Accused and sentence him to suffer the mandatory death penalty.