Former DBS employee jailed for selling personal information of 37 customers to data broker
SINGAPORE — A 29-year-old former wealth planning manager was jailed 12 weeks on Tuesday (Sept 29) for selling customers' information to a data broker, who ended up selling the details to loan sharks.
Quiz of the week
How well do you know the news? Test your knowledge.
- Terry Tang Jia Lin earned S$900 from selling customers' personal data
- He accessed DBS bank's internal computer system and gave the details to a data broker
- His lawyers said that before his offences, the bank had cut his pay
SINGAPORE — A 29-year-old former wealth planning manager was jailed 12 weeks on Tuesday (Sept 29) for selling customers' information to a data broker, who ended up selling the details to loan sharks.
Terry Tang Jia Lin, a Singaporean, was working for DBS bank when he committed the offences between April and July last year. He earned S$900 in total for selling the data.
He pleaded guilty last week to one charge of unauthorised access to computer material under the Computer Misuse Act. Another charge of supplying personal information under the same Act was taken into consideration for sentencing.
The court heard then that as part of his job, he was allowed access to DBS customers’ personal information in a secure computer system.
He was authorised to use the system only to evaluate his customers’ risk level in order to recommend financial products to them.
Tang and his accomplice Goh Kok Liang, also aged 29, met in 2016 through a mutual friend.
Goh owned a business that sold personal information to various buyers including loan sharks.
In April last year, the pair met up at club Aura in Orchard Hotel, where Goh asked if Tang could help him to retrieve the personal information of various individuals.
Tang told Goh that if he provided any identifying details of an individual, such as their National Registration Identity Card number or mobile phone number, Tang could provide more personal information. This included the person’s address, family member’s details, employment details and bank account balance.
Goh offered Tang S$100 for every four searches he performed. Tang neither verified nor performed any independent investigation into either the nature of Goh’s business or what the other man intended to do with the information.
Tang ended up retrieving the personal information of 37 customers, mostly their identity card numbers, after using his identification number at work to enter the system.
He then sent the information to Goh through WhatsApp messages on 10 occasions under the moniker “Ted Fat”, in order to hide his involvement.
He was eventually arrested on Aug 5 last year.
Court documents did not reveal if Goh was prosecuted.
TANG’S JOB WAS STRESSFUL, LAWYERS SAY
In mitigation, Tang's lawyers from Kalidass Law Corporation said that his job was “tremendously stressful” because he had to regularly achieve demanding key performance indicators.
Just before his offences, a “mystery shopper” assessed his work on behalf of DBS. He ended up failing the assignment and DBS cut his pay, meaning he received his basic salary and did not get commission for a year, the lawyers added.
Tang would then go out drinking to ease his stress and that was where he met Goh.
The other man had asked him if he wanted to make more money by helping him to check customers' particulars.
Tang became suspicious of the true nature of Goh’s job only towards the last of the offences when Goh said he wanted to sell the information of those who had “money problems”, the lawyers said.
“It was only when he received these messages that he was alerted to the possibility that Goh could be in some way connected with unlicensed moneylending. He did not reply Goh and immediately, and voluntarily, ceased all contact with him due to this suspicion,” they told the court.
In sentencing Tang, Deputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie took into account his lack of criminal history and handwritten letter of apology, which she noted showed his genuine remorse.
“I hope that you… strive to not put yourself and your family through such an ordeal again,” she added.
Tang could have been jailed up to two years or fined up to S$5,000, or both.