SINGAPORE: A married woman who was having an affair with her business partner helped him to install a mini camcorder in her toilet so he could record her daughter showering.
The 48-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 weeks’ jail on Thursday (Feb 2) for one count of installing equipment with the intention of enabling her lover to commit voyeurism.
Her 50-year-old former lover received the same jail term for one charge of abetting the woman to install the camcorder so he could record her daughter showering.
Both parties cannot be named due to a gag order imposed by the court.
The court heard that the woman got acquainted with the man in 2014, when she worked as a sales assistant in his retail shop.
In 2016, she quit her job, but remained in contact with the man and entered into an extramarital affair.
In 2020, the pair started an online store related to ceiling fans and lights. They were now both lovers and business partners.
In May 2021, the man bought a mini camcorder from Shopee, intending to record his lover’s daughter showering.
All details of the daughter, including her age, were redacted from court documents.
The man passed the camcorder to his lover and asked her to install it. Both of them knew that the woman’s daughter did not consent to being recorded.
The woman took the mini camcorder and was installing it in the kitchen, facing the shower area, when her daughter spotted her.
After her mother left, the victim went inside and saw the device. She took it out and retrieved the footage, but nothing incriminating was inside other than footage of her mother installing the device.
The camcorder was eventually disposed of.
The prosecutor called for 10 weeks’ jail for the man, and eight weeks’ jail for the woman.
He said that it was the man who bought the device and passed it to the woman for installation, such “that this entire sorry state of affairs came to be”.
The man’s lawyer asked for not more than 10 weeks’ jail. He said what his client did was “very misguided” and caused strain to his family as well as his relationship with his business partner.
The man expressed remorse and regret and apologised to the victim and her family.
The lawyer added that the incident arose in the context of their relationship, where there was “teasing and banter”.
He claimed that his client “had been tempted and seduced” by the woman, who had “propositioned to him, in particular, about the looks of her daughter”.
He said his client took “what was supposed to be banter” too far and was “quite shocked” when he was called down for the case.
The prosecutor said that the act could not be justified by any characterisation of the relationship.
Even if it started off as an “overly sexual joke”, this is clearly a case of a joke taken too far, he said.
He added that the man was married, with children of his own, and could have taken the woman to task for whatever comments or jokes she might have made about her own daughter.
The prosecutor said the fact that no voyeuristic recordings were made should not be credited to either accused.
Instead, it was the victim’s own vigilance that led to the discovery.
“Had the victim arrived too late, or not spotted (her mother) at all, Lord knows what might have transpired in that alternative scenario,” he said.
In mitigation, the unrepresented woman said: “I hope that my daughter the victim will not be affected because of this case.”
She had, in earlier court records, claimed that her daughter had forgiven her.
The judge sentenced both the accused to the same jail term, finding their criminality and culpability similar especially as the woman was the victim’s mother.
