SINGAPORE: A man who found a 16-year-old “sugar baby” online was on Friday (Dec 13) convicted of paying the girl for sex folllowing a trial.
Mario Antonio Di Dier, a 42-year-old Singaporean, was found guilty on five counts of paying the victim for sex between Dec 2, 2021 and Apr 13, 2022.
The legal age of consent for sex in Singapore is 16. But it is an offence to have commercial sex with a minor under the age of 18.
Di Dier and the girl met in November 2021 via the Sugarbook website. According to the website, the minimum age required to use Sugarbook is 18.
The website bills itself as a dating platform that connects “sugar daddies” with “sugar babies” – a relationship that usually involves exchanging financial support for sexual acts or companionship.
The police were alerted to the case by the victim, who lodged a report in August 2022 saying that she had consensual sex with Di Dier and he paid her afterwards.
At trial, Di Dier agreed that they had sex, but denied paying her. He claimed that he gave her money because she was his friend and in financial need.
The prosecution’s case was that before having sex, the victim told Di Dier she joined Sugarbook because she needed money, and told him her rates for different sexual acts. Di Dier agreed, and they started a sexual relationship on this basis.
District Judge Ow Yong Tuck Leong found that the girl was an “unusually convincing” and candid witness, while Di Dier was not credible.
According to the victim, she was paid S$300 (US$223) for performing a sexual act on Di Dier during their first meeting on Dec 2, 2021.
In her mind, Di Dier was her “sugar daddy” paying her for sex, and this led to her meeting him again, said Judge Ow Yong. She was paid S$300 for sexual acts on four subsequent occasions.
Di Dier was familiar with how Sugarbook worked by the time he met the victim, the judge said.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Gladys Lim said that he had met multiple women on the platform before and given them money for companionship, which might include sex. He also knew the victim was under 18.
Judge Ow Yong noted that Di Dier and the girl found a common interest in looking after a cat that she brought to one of their meetings.
Defence lawyers Mr Nicolas Tang and Ms Ashviniy Narenthiren used this to argue that the girl contradicted herself on meeting Di Dier only to be paid for sex, because she agreed there were other reasons to meet him, like seeing the cat.
But the judge found that caring for the cat did not change their original “sugar” relationship.
The defence also argued that the victim was Di Dier’s girlfriend, and that it was normal for them to have a sexual relationship and for him to give his girlfriend money from time to time.
But Judge Ow Yong observed that in their relationship, Di Dier only arranged for the girl to go to his home, and they did not go out for entertainment. She was expected to go home after having sex.
Di Dier also testified that he and the girl were not romantically involved, the judge noted.
The victim testified that she wanted to continue meeting Di Dier to be paid for sex, but he did not, and stopped meeting her. She then made the police report.
Judge Ow Yong rejected the defence’s contention that the fact the victim did not report Di Dier until four months after their last meeting suggested a “suspicious motive” on her part. He found no evidence of that.
The judge said that parliament’s intent in enacting the law covering this offence was to protect young people because they are immature, vulnerable and can be exploited, and should be protected from providing sexual services.
He said the onus was on the older person to “do right” and not take advantage of the victim for sexual gratification, even if the victim offered sexual services.
In this case, Di Dier had seen marks on the girl’s body that indicated self-harm, and therefore, even more so should not have taken advantage of her vulnerability, the judge said.
Di Dier will return to court for sentencing on Feb 10, 2025.
For each charge of having commercial sex with a minor under 18, he can be jailed for up to seven years, fined or both.
Others in Singapore have been convicted after meeting minors on Sugarbook and paying them for sex.
In January, 39-year-old Benjamin Huang Junlong was jailed for sexual penetration of a 15-year-old girl and filming the act without her permission, among other offences.
In October 2022, 47-year-old Aloi Gregory Marshall was sentenced to jail for paying a 17-year-old girl S$1,000 for sex.
